If it's trolling it definitely got to you! Editing your posts! hahahah UR SO MAD!!11

3/22/2008 4:50:37 PM

Anyway, this entire thread is a troll. Else I wouldn't be here wasting time on it.

The problem with you pro-CCW people is that you refuse to keep this argument on the terms of simple principle in that you think your rights in the Constitution (or wherever as a citizen of the US) should allow you to carry guns wherever you please by adding all this nonsense as to how carrying deadly weapons would make you be safer.

If anything "emotional" is coming from anti-CCW people, I'd blame yourselves. If anybody wanted to shoot up a school, there's nothing a CCW permit holder could do about it. That's something you can't admit when it comes up in the argument, and you'd rather post all these stats that claim how mentally stable CCW holders are, when in fact, you seriously overlook the tendency for human error in thinking it's perfectly safe to add to the availabity of firearms.

Quote :

"The standard isn't perfection, anyway--it's net preservation of life and limb, and I don't think that's really up for debate. "

Yeah, it's not up for debate, because your militarized, mechanized logic says so in such a dismissive, patronizing way (and I'll get to more of that in a second). I really don't know what to say to this...It's just another example as to how you step over the line as to whether something should be your right versus some dumb implication that it'd make you or anybody else safer if you could SLANG GUNS.

Quote :

"I know I'm a little older than most of you in this thread "

Don't get in here acting wise when you're all of 26. I don't have anything against you personally, but your online persona reeks of arrogance and those other adjectives I said above. How much pussy has your badassedness got you on the WolfWeb?

3/22/2008 5:15:12 PM

YES! Where this thread needs to be! And in that, I promise this is where I make my exit:

Argument/Counter Argument Circular Proposal as to How this Thread got to 7 Pages:

I think carrying guns to school is my right --> I don't think it is your right --> you're liberal/socialist --> you're type A want-to-be-a-hero --> you're a pussy. the standards for CCWs are so high! here is facebook-linked stats! more importantly omg what happened at VT and UNC!? I bet they wouldve wanted gunzz! --> how would carrying guns make anybody safer? --> how would it make anything more dangerous? --> because youre adding to the problem with more firearms! --> But I think carrying guns to school is my right --> I don't think it is your right...

3/22/2008 5:35:20 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you people conceal a kevlar vest instead? That would satisfy both groups, right?"

Because there's no other way to protect yourself against a gunman if you don't have a gun yourself! Rather than actually try to be safer, the best idea is to simply fight fire with fire!

3/22/2008 9:23:30 PM

Quote :

"Let's see here. We're on the WOLF WEB. How many people here are students of UNC or Duke? I don't speak to many students at UNC or Duke so I couldn't tell you what their opinions are. If it's that important, why don't you ask them. I fail to see what difference it makes though. "

I imagine if you go to sports talk you might find a UNC/Duke student somewheres...

Or...oh wait...

3/22/2008 9:31:10 PM

Quote :

"I imagine if you go to sports talk you might find a UNC/Duke student somewheres... Or...oh wait..."

And again, What the FUCK difference does it make? Only people that have been a victim of violence should have the right to choose? Fine. As I said, I have been the victim of gun violence? Have you? Nope? Then shut the fuck up. Can you possibly come up with a more random and ignorant question trying to argue this? Once again, YOU asked for examples of why it would be necessary or beneficial. You were given examples where a CCW could have made a HUGE impact.

As for the circular argument, you're the one going in circles. You keep going back to the same thing each time. How about answering some of the questions that have been posted? Obviously someone as intelligent as you can answer the simple question of what happens when crossing the street to make CCW permit holders suddenly become more dangerous.

So far, your arguments have been the following:
1. Guns everywhere!!! People will go crazy shooting each other over random arguments!
2. Guns everywhere!!! People will freak out when they see them!!!
3. Cops will protect us! It's their jobs!!!!
4. Allowing CCW on campus will add to the available guns for criminals!
5. You can't do anything anyway!!!

1: We've shown how completely absurd this is. The stats are there and show that CCW permit holders are less likely than the POLICE to commit a felony or even DUIs. Hopefully we're past this retardation.
2: We've also (hopefully) finally helped your tiny mind understand what the word "concealed" means. Again, hopefully we're past this retardation.
3: Cops are counteractive, not proactive. Ask any cop you know how many times they've PREVENTED a crime and how many times they've cleaned up after one. Then go ahead and check out the Supreme Court and read their decision that states that LEOs are NOT responsible for protecting citizens. Obviously, I'm just completely wrong on this though, right? After all, it's not like anyone has managed to get by the massive police force on any college campus in order to murder students. Oh wait... I forgot. Oops.
4: Again, do we REALLY need to explain to you what concealed means? Bad guy doesn't know I have a gun then he's not very likely to take it from me, is he?
5: This is perhaps the most idiotic statements you've made. Wait, strike that. I forgot who I was talking to. Regardless, it's still pretty fucking stupid. I'm just going to follow this one up with a "Why?" Does the same magical force field that turns law-abiding CCW permit holders into raving lunatics turn bad guys into some magical invincible gods?

Seriously, you've said that you're getting out of this thread a couple of times now. Why don't you do us all a favor and take your ignorance elsewhere?

3/22/2008 10:18:29 PM

Quote :

"The problem with you pro-CCW people is that you refuse to keep this argument on the terms of simple principle in that you think your rights in the Constitution (or wherever as a citizen of the US) should allow you to carry guns wherever you please by adding all this nonsense as to how carrying deadly weapons would make you be safer."

Why should it be kept entirely to principle? Is there something wrong with entering facts into the debate as well?

3/22/2008 10:44:24 PM

Again, your argument is you think it's your right to carry on campus. As a student I'd be the type of person that doesn't think it's your right because you impinge upon my rights. Now, I appreciate your efforts not to carry guns on campus as long as it's illegal. If they ever dictate otherwise, you may enjoy your weapon in the Atrium, in gym class while fitness walking, in the library, while getting a soda, or while taking a final. And I hope if it happens it'll make you a better person.

^because the "examples" don't apply. Yet again, this is strictly a matter of rights and shouldn't be confused with anything else...


[Edited on March 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2008 10:47:33 PM

Right, but the abridgment of rights is (hopefully) based on a practical, overwhelming, need to abridge that right. So if the argument is that you have a right to carry this weapon, then it only makes sense to show that the current abridgments to those rights are not needed or practical, hence the discussion moves from navel-gazing abstract philosophy to concrete examples, facts and studies. In short, if I argue I do have a right, and you argue I don't, at some point, one of us needs to answer the question of why, otherwise we're just engaging in mental masturbation.

3/22/2008 11:04:34 PM

Quote :

"So far, your arguments have been the following: 1. Guns everywhere!!! People will go crazy shooting each other over random arguments! 2. Guns everywhere!!! People will freak out when they see them!!! 3. Cops will protect us! It's their jobs!!!! 4. Allowing CCW on campus will add to the available guns for criminals! 5. You can't do anything anyway!!!"

1. Never said anything of the like.
2. Yes, because there's no propensity for human error ever, and no one will EVER know if one regularly carries a firearm if they CONCEAL IT. CCW holdership is this ultimate club like THE SKULLS where no one will ever know if you're a member and they'll never know if you carry firearms for LIFE! and there's no chance for anybody to get excited when they see them because they never will!!1
3. Never said one thing about a cop.
4. Never said for criminals.
5. Yeah, you would have made real impact against a psychopath like at VT, I know.

Dude, it's a little like you've been spending a load of time on other forums to build up these automatic retorts to anyone that's opposed to your ideas here, or you're confusing me with someone else that's opposed to your ideas and have said these things.

Are you the Dave that works at the pawn shop on Western?

3/22/2008 11:07:18 PM

No, I'm afraid I don't work at a pawn shop.

As for the "Your arguments", that's you, Golovko, & the others chiming in with some BS theories.

1. It's been said in this thread. I'm not looking back to see who it was. Glad to hear you don't agree with it.

2. Yes, there is human error. We'll use you for example. Please tell me how many people that you have seen in the past year who were carrying concealed. Hell, I can show you about 15 people that I worked with that never had a clue that I carried a gun EVERY DAY for well over a year.

3. Again, it's been said here. If you don't subscribe, glad to hear it.

4. So in what way are adding them bad? With some of your statements, I assumed that you meant they would be taken away by the bad guys. What was your point with this then?

5. I'm glad you know that. Please explain how. Obviously, NOT allowing CCW on campus REALLY helped in that tragedy. Let me guess, all ccw permit holders are giant pussies that will cower when placed in any dangerous situation? I sincerely hope you have some better bullshit than that.

edit: You still forgot to explain what makes a campus different than the store across the street.

[Edited on March 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : a]

3/22/2008 11:40:37 PM

Quote :

"I'd blame yourselves. If anybody wanted to shoot up a school, there's nothing a CCW permit holder could do about it."

other than fucking kill him, i suppose.

Quote :

"Don't get in here acting wise when you're all of 26. I don't have anything against you personally, but your online persona reeks of arrogance and those other adjectives I said above. How much pussy has your badassedness got you on the WolfWeb? "

28

(and a half )

and I've never laid anyone "from" the wolfweb (i think there have been a couple whom I stumbled across online afterwards).

not that i really understand what difference any of that makes for our purposes here

at any rate, that comment was me joking that it's been a little while since i've been in high school, but we didn't have 21-year olds there when I attended, so the part about guns being banned at college because people really are just scared to have them in highschools is an argument that holds no water.

3/23/2008 1:24:26 AM

^ I believe the idea was to allow the staff at high schools to concealed carry, which, personally, I wouldn't have had a problem with, but it is a totally different issue, and could have a different effect on classroom environments than concealed carry in colleges. I don't want to try to hypothesize too much about the problems with both of those setups, but there would be different feelings about "the teachers are armed," and "the teachers AND STUDENTS are armed." *shrug*

3/23/2008 12:13:36 PM

btw, if there are any psychopaths on tww.....if you took an assalt weapton to Nelson 3400, you could kill at least 100 students if you went when like EC 205 was meeting

3/23/2008 12:18:38 PM

^ geeeeee, thanks... now all of us business majors are in trouble

3/23/2008 12:29:44 PM

I think about it this way:

Say there is a person wanting to break into a home and commit a robbery, or maybe a rape - the scenario goes:

Home A has a big sign on their front lawn saying "Gun-free zone"

Home B has no such sign, and thus that person may, or may not be, in possession of a firearm.



Which house would the criminal pick?

3/23/2008 12:52:46 PM

Quote :

".if you took an assalt weapton to Nelson 3400, you could kill at least 100 students if you went when like EC 205 was meeting"

I doubt you'd get 100 beacuse the bodies of the downed would be shielding the other people.

3/23/2008 1:27:50 PM

Thanks for the summary Mr Scrumples.

Has anyone here mentioned the Jewish hero that popped the would-be Cho in Israel within the past few months?

I just assumed that was why it'd reached 7 pages. I'd find an article about it, but it's Easter and I'm engaged in the ritual worship of zombie rabbits...

3/23/2008 1:53:19 PM

but Gamecat, that's completely besides the point!!! Obviously his being armed created MORE problems!!! I mean really, you can't expect the anti's to be rational or anything!

3/23/2008 2:20:26 PM

Quote :

"You are a complete fucking moron who is totally ignorant of the requirements and procedures necessary to obtain a CCP"

i'm well aware, kthx. you, however, are a complete fucking, high as a kite, retard for thinking that just because you have a CCP means you'll keep your cool in situations involving masked gun man and total caos. kkthx.

shooting at paper targets at the firing range is so similar to shooting at moving targets firing back at you...not to mention you and everyone else around you is in total panic.

3/23/2008 6:31:39 PM

Quote :

"Has anyone here mentioned the Jewish hero that popped the would-be Cho in Israel within the past few months?"

Yes, the necessity of carrying a gun between Israel and North Carolina are direct parallels to one another.

3/23/2008 10:30:10 PM

that isn't really much of an argument for your side, though

[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : and it's at least bordering on "logical fallacy"]

3/23/2008 11:09:03 PM

^^ That a fact?

I could swear that when Cho Seung Hui went all Grand Theft Auto he did it in these United States.

Clearly, there are about 30+ souls resting in peace on American soil as a direct result of that tragedy that testify to how similar conditions are between the two.

But why does this even matter?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say:

Quote :

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms only when it's obvious that they need them for personal safety, shall not be infringed."

[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 11:22 PM. Reason : state : nation ; North Carolina : Israel ; apples : WTF?]

3/23/2008 11:17:36 PM

i guess if we are going to absolutely and continually ignore the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment doesn't get spared any more than the rest of it.



[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 11:24 PM. Reason : asfd]

3/23/2008 11:24:48 PM

Precisely.

When tacitly excused for ignoring one line of the Constitution, a government can justify ignoring the whole goddamn thing.

Constitutionalism FTW

I shy away from most dichotomies, but on this issue there are simply Constitutional advocates and motherfuckers who've never been robbed at gunpoint.

[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ...]

3/23/2008 11:28:18 PM

I don't know.

Part of the reason Israelis defend themselves so well is because they're used to and conditioned for violence.

When a Palestinian with an assault rifle attacked Israelis at a bat mitzvah, they responded by beating him to death with chairs, bottles, fists, and feet.

Do we really want normal folks to be capable of that? Could they be in our more peaceful society?

3/23/2008 11:33:50 PM

Quote :

"Part of the reason Israelis defend themselves so well is because they're used to and conditioned for violence."

Those peacefully themed simulators like World of Warcraft and Grant Theft Auto do a bit of conditioning, too.

We're conditioned to grossly deny the realities of violence.

Quote :

"Do we really want normal folks to be capable of that?"

Since when has any human given a shit what you've wanted him to be capable of?

You are capable of being a Pope. You are capable of everything Hitler was. Thanks to overly broad legal definitions and Internet culture, you are capable of being the leader of a terrorist network.

Quote :

"Could they be in our more peaceful society?"

They could form our more peaceful society.

Think of it this way: Everyone suddenly is endowed with the same superpower.

Some will be irresponsible with it, yet, but the population ends up safer as a result of the overall leveling of individual power.

Said differently, do you think Congress would get away with half the shit it gets away with if every American citizen was armed?

[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2008 11:48:24 PM

Quote :

"Think of it this way: Everyone suddenly is endowed with the same superpower."

(Keep in mind, I agree, guns are good, CCW for the win.)
BUT, I don't like this way of thinking. Guns aren't special, they aren't a superpower. Yes, when someone else has a gun, a gun is the MOST EFFECTIVE way of killing someone, but the power you speak of is just the power to kill someone else, which we can perfectly well pull off without guns. Granted, it has a greater toll on our psyches, and we are able to justify, rationalize, and cope with killing someone better when we do it with a gun, rather than, well, beathing him to death with chairs, bottles, fists, and feet.
We are all capable of killing, we are all capable of defending ourselves. But, if someone else is using a gun, I want to have that same tool at my disposal.

3/24/2008 12:38:40 AM

^ No, it's exactly as I said. Superpower analogy and all.

A gun LEVELS the playing field in absolute terms that defy the regular laws of nature and allow for biological anomalies to occur.

A 5 year-old can kill a 28 year old marine with a gun quite easily for instance. Hard to find that sort of story in the wild or predating the gun, I'll bet you.

An idiot that can't tie his own shoes or bench press a bag of sugar can buy a gun and suddenly murder 1000 assholes from a distance who are physically stronger, more intelligent, and capable of building their own weapons as long as they are gun-deprived. You didn't see this kinda shit before the invention of gunpowder.

The gun is the ultimate leveler of power. An efficient, simple, easy-to-use dealer of death and high velocity destruction. Why wouldn't it be?

Or do you think your government uses some other magical force to impose, retain, and extend its authority in all cases?

Just who do you think the guarantee of your rights to own a gun were meant to secure you from after all?

And I sure as fuck am not the one to be implying has some fetish for guns. Take that shit elsewhere.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : ...]

3/24/2008 12:41:48 AM

I used the bat mitzvah example intentionally.

Unarmed Israelis beat the crap out of an attacker wielding an assault rifle.

That's not what happens at shootings in this country. It's a matter of culture.

I'm not opposed to folks carrying guns, but equipment is only part of the equation. Equal access to guns doesn't level the playing field between badasses and wimps. Thinking the piece alone will protect you gets people killed.

I want people to be willing to defend themselves with whatever they have available. That would be the ideal. Unfortunately, being good at violence and still peaceful is a tricky act to balance.

Also, assuming your handgun scares the state is rather optimistic. An armed population might deter abuse by police. That's a laudable goal, no doubt about it. The military, however, retains control of by far the biggest guns. Soldiers wear armor now. Pistol rounds aren't a major threat to them.

Unless weapon laws liberalize in the coming years, the power difference between the government and civilians will only increase. Good luck trying to take out that police robot with your handgun.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 1:07 AM. Reason : d]

3/24/2008 12:56:34 AM

My thought is that if everyone owns a gun, everyone will be protected. You'll just have to assume everyone knows how to use one. Fucking up once could be fatal.

Or do you want to take your chances and guess wrong on anyone in particular?

Regardless of culture, as populations increase and we live closer together at all hours, when everyone has a gun the odds will generally be in favor of those wishing to maintain peace and stability. The more people there are around with the immediately available option of taking Cho down, the greater the chances that somebody--especially whose life is immediately threatened--will do so.

I just don't understand how this is a hard idea to grasp. Help me.

Quote :

"Unarmed Israelis beat the crap out of an attacker wielding an assault rifle. That's not what happens at shootings in this country. It's a matter of culture. "

Culture? Or conscription?

If Cho Seung Hui had tried that shit at the Citadel he would've got maybe 2 cadets. If that.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 1:07 AM. Reason : ...]

3/24/2008 1:00:53 AM

Quote :

"My thought is that if everyone owns a gun, everyone will be protected. You'll just have to assume everyone knows how to use one. Fucking up once could be fatal."

This isn't necessarily the case. We have plenty of historical and modern examples of violent well-armed populations. Other similarly armed groups are more peaceful. Weapon ownership isn't the only important variable.

Quote :

"If Cho Seung Hui had tried that shit at the Citadel he would've got maybe 2 cadets. If that."

Would you want everyone to be a military-trained badass? Even if you do, it's not likely to happen anytime soon. In peaceful areas of the country, why bother? There's not enough benefit to encourage tons of people to practice self-defense.

3/24/2008 1:16:37 AM

Quote :

"Culture? Or conscription? If Cho Seung Hui had tried that shit at the Citadel he would've got maybe 2 cadets. If that. "

It's not that more due to the Citadel's culture though?

The likelihood of large amounts of people carrying guns around with them is extremely small. We'd be better off to social engineer people to think that instead of just giving robbers/muggers/attackers what they want, that you should fight back brutally, even if it means your death (don't phrase it like that). Over a short period of time, the general citizenry would be looking out for criminals so they can beat some ass. It'll also probably make people more vigilant about safety and freedom and rights in general.

So no, it's not conscription, it's culture. Just giving people guns and not telling them how to use it would be disastrous.

3/24/2008 1:29:04 AM

Remember, self-defense goes beyond merely knowing how to shoot your gun. Without situational awareness, it won't necessarily save you, even if it's in your hands.

For example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3HR2O2m068

3/24/2008 1:37:08 AM

Do gun owners have to prove they have all their weapons at some time?

Like every five years, bring their firearms in and have their "gun license" renewed or something?

Maybe prison if you're missing more than, say, three weapons?

3/24/2008 2:24:08 AM

Quote :

"I shy away from most dichotomies, but on this issue there are simply Constitutional advocates and motherfuckers who've never been robbed at gunpoint. "

well, i've never been robbed at gunpoint (though I have had a gun pulled on me)

and i also do not have a CCP (partially because they're so restricted that they are of limited utility)

and I'm not a gun fanatic--I own 3 guns (2 hunting rifles and 1 pistol. need to get another shotgun). Fairly pedestrian stuff in the spectrum of firearms.

also, I'm not really on the fringe politically. I see the grey areas and see both sides of most issues, and am a fairly moderate right-leaning libertarian (small-"L"), registered Republican (though I generally have a good deal of disdain for and not particularly strong affiliation with the party).

HOWEVER, there is little in the way of gun control that I see both sides of. Most advocates of it know little to nothing about firearms (I'll go out on a limb and say that I have never once met an anti-gun person who knew DICK about the guns he/she so loathed), and are either ignorant of or choose to ignore most of the statistics. They shun practicality in favor of knee-jerk, emotionally (and sometimes misinformation and misconception) driven reactions that fly in the face of sensibility.

There are a few out there on the pro-gun lunatic fringe that I disagree with, but the overwhelming majority of anti-gun legislation and regulation is fucking stupid (though I'm ok, pending the details, and assuming it's practically doable, of doing a mental health background check, though there would be some drawbacks concerning getting a few people to seek help at all if they knew it would prevent a firearms purchase).

and the old Assault Weapons Ban is a perfect example of the complete stupidity of the anti-gun movement. I couldn't have dreamed up a more idiotic, ineffective, and poorly legislated set of laws if I'd tried, yet they fought tooth and nail to keep it alive--many because of the aforementioned ignorance, and some because they felt that even though it was piss-poor legislation, it was SOMETHING. I don't know which group is worse.

3/24/2008 2:43:34 AM

Quote :

"Do we really want normal folks to be capable of that?"

I'd say so.

Now, not everyone needs to be a killer (and by killer, I mean someone who is completely moral, ethical, and psychologically sound, but not only fully capable of ending a life should the need arise, but not really tremendously opposed to doing so). In fact, maybe it's good that most people aren't. We get by, in our RELATIVELY peaceful society, with a lot of sheep and a comparatively small number of watchdogs. That said, I think we'd be well served if the bulk of our society had just a little more grit.

Quote :

"Those peacefully themed simulators like World of Warcraft and Grant Theft Auto do a bit of conditioning, too. "

I used to roll my eyes whenever I heard comments like this, and I'm still not sure the effect is as strong as some people assert, but I do this there is some truth in this.

Quote :

"We are all capable of killing, we are all capable of defending ourselves."

I don't think so.

Or at least, I think that many people's capability for killing and/or defending themselves in such an intense situation is pretty much negligable (the former mostly for psychological reasons, the latter for physical/lack of know-how reasons).

Quote :

"I'm not opposed to folks carrying guns, but equipment is only part of the equation. Equal access to guns doesn't level the playing field between badasses and wimps. Thinking the piece alone will protect you gets people killed. "

I agree with Gamecat to a large extent that guns are a HUGE equalizer, but these statements are pretty much true, too.

Quote :

"Unfortunately, being good at violence and still peaceful is a tricky act to balance. "

I'm not sure what to say here. I'm no pit fighter or Green Beret firearms expert, but I'll assert that between well above average physical conditioning and ability/training in hand-to-hand fighting and skill with firearms, I'm pretty damned "good" at violence. However, I'm QUITE restrained in terms of reacting to personal anger. I'm really pretty laid back in general, and not the sort of guy who will end up in a fight due to someone just acting like an asshole. I'll either just not worry much about it, or handle it in a way besides knocking his teeth in.

BUT...my "righteous indignation" trigger is a different matter. I am all about seeing bad things happen to people who completely deserve it (and I don't mean just for being a dick). Really the only thing restraining me in these instances is the amount of legal headaches it could cause me if I did what I really want to--I have little in the way of an internal killswitch to stop me from levying harm upon people who truly, legitimately deserve it...and THAT is a direct function of my "sheepdog" (if you're familiar with the Dave Grossman model) mentality.

So basically, I think that (a) being good at violence doesn't make being peaceful difficult...the type of people who--at least at at times--lean towards doing violence tend to be good at it.

and (b) Being this sort of person is different from being an outlaw, or a predator, or a loose cannon. Going back to the Grossman model, there is a huge difference between a sheepdog and a wolf--but the appearance of the two is sometimes a little too close for comfort from the eyes of the sheep.

(if you didn't notice, i really like that Grossman analogy. The first time I saw it, it was like he'd read my mind and put it into words better than I could have.)

3/24/2008 3:22:59 AM

Look you need to carry weapons to school in case the gubment tries to steal your Lion-O lunch box.

3/24/2008 10:28:46 AM

3/24/2008 10:31:43 AM

Obviously social regulation would accompany extending the rights of gun owners to carry weapons with them everywhere...

Quote :

"GoldenViper: This isn't necessarily the case. We have plenty of historical and modern examples of violent well-armed populations. Other similarly armed groups are more peaceful. Weapon ownership isn't the only important variable."

Name them, history major.

Quote :

"GoldenViper: Would you want everyone to be a military-trained badass?"

No. And with a very real probability that anyone could be carrying a handgun, not everyone would need to be.

Quote :

"moron: It's not that more due to the Citadel's culture though?"

Sure it is.

The analogy still fits because Israelis are conscripted to join the military at some point. They have a working knowledge of firearms and self-defense gained from that experience.

Similarly, no Dylan or Klebold in his right mind would try taking down students at the Citadel or anywhere else packed with people actively gaining experience in these two fields who have ready-access to guns.

Quote :

"moron: The likelihood of large amounts of people carrying guns around with them is extremely small."

Well yeah. Presently. As a result of a huge degree of regulation. That doesn't have to be a permanent condition.

Quote :

"moron: We'd be better off to social engineer people to think that instead of just giving robbers/muggers/attackers what they want, that you should fight back brutally, even if it means your death (don't phrase it like that)."

Good luck figuring out how to phrase that.

Wouldn't shooting an armed robber would qualify as "fight[ing] back brutally, even if it means your death?"

Quote :

"moron: So no, it's not conscription, it's culture."

But in Israel, where "Cho" got popped in a hurry, it is conscription AND culture. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but culture is an overly broad term.

Quote :

"moron: Just giving people guns and not telling them how to use it would be disastrous."

I never intended to present the solution as if it were as simple as handing out guns and making them legal to carry, although that'd be a drastic improvement in itself.

The prevalence of the idea that everyone is carrying a gun would be the real deterrent.

Criminal Thought Process: "Better not rob grandma over there, she might be packing heat. And if she isn't, I'll bet that jackass sipping his latte nearby has a glock tucked into his suit jacket. What about those footsteps behind me? Would that guy cap me for jacking grandma's ride?"

Frankly, I don't mind government regulation saying you have to take safety courses and learn to operate a gun. That only furthers the deterring effect. The mere fact that the number of people carrying guns and taking courses would be an unknown would drastically deter any would-be criminal from wanting to play the "So you think you're tough" game.

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Do gun owners have to prove they have all their weapons at some time? Like every five years, bring their firearms in and have their "gun license" renewed or something? Maybe prison if you're missing more than, say, three weapons?"

Not a bad idea.

I don't own a gun. I'm not sure if they do anything like this.

Quote :

"theDuke866: well, i've never been robbed at gunpoint (though I have had a gun pulled on me)"

I don't expect many marines have.

You fit into the Constitutional advocate category.

Quote :

"theDuke866: I used to roll my eyes whenever I heard comments like this, and I'm still not sure the effect is as strong as some people assert, but I do this there is some truth in this."

Only as a desensitizer. Causal links to behavior fizzle until you get down to the YOUNGEST of children playing these kinds of games.

That was not an OMF GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE LOL post.

Quote :

"theDuke866: So basically, I think that (a) being good at violence doesn't make being peaceful difficult...the type of people who--at least at at times--lean towards doing violence tend to be good at it."

Not trying to kid, but it's the same concept as karate. You learn it / carry a weapon so that you'll know what to do should you need to use it, not because you want to go around stomping ass all over the place.

I'm going to have to read this Grossman book. You've sold me on it.

3/24/2008 10:34:40 AM

Possibly the most fascinating book I've ever read. I don't agree with every single thing he says, but it's a really, really good book. The author made a career in the Army as both an enlisted man and an officer as a paratrooper and Ranger. he ended up, somewhere along the line, becoming a professor of psychology at West Point and then at another university (I think it was either Oklahoma or Arkansas State or something). The book is basically a study of this aspect of psychology, with doses of history tossed in for good measure.

3/24/2008 10:57:55 AM

Quote :

"Name them, history major."

Medieval Europe would be one example. Though access to weapons varied, the English were particularly well-armed. It seems as if nearly everyone at least wore a knife. This comes through when reading 14th-century coroner's rolls. Stab victims drawn weapons on their own and chase down attackers. You have folks holding poleaxes while urinating. (One murder apparently happened because of a urinal splash. Watch your aim, guys.)

The murder rate for medieval London has been estimated at 30-50 per 100,000. That's quite high by modern standards. Only the most violent US cities currently match it. The rate got as high as 100 per 100,000 in parts of a medieval Germany. I'm unsure how well-armed German populations were.

Iraq, of course, would be contemporary example. Guns everywhere, gun violence everywhere. If access to weapons alone stopped violence, wars wouldn't happen.

Quote :

"The prevalence of the idea that everyone is carrying a gun would be the real deterrent."

Maybe, maybe not. Everyone knows cops pack heat and wear armor. Folks still attack them, even when unarmed. Consider the case of Devin Moore.

Quote :

"Moore had no criminal history, and was cooperative as Strickland booked him inside the Fayette police station. Then suddenly, inexplicably, Moore snapped. According to Moore's own statement, he lunged at Officer Arnold Strickland, grabbing his .40-caliber Glock automatic and shot Strickland twice, once in the head. Officer James Crump heard the shots and came running. Moore met him in the hallway, and fired three shots into Crump, one of them in the head. Moore kept walking down the hallway towards the door of the emergency dispatcher. There, he turned and fired five shots into Ace Mealer. Again, one of those shots was in the head. Along the way, Moore had grabbed a set of car keys. He went out the door to the parking lot, jumped into a police cruiser, and took off. It all took less than a minute, and three men were dead."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml

That piece won't necessarily protect you. Sometime it'll kill you. A gun your pants won't do you any good once the attacker gets close. For better or worse, physical strength and grappling skills still matter.

The gun is a great equalizer if it's in your hands and there's an opponent in front of you. For self-defense, that's an excellent situation to be in. You might not be so lucky.

If everyone carried, I'm sure that would at least affect violent crime. In theory, muggings and such would go down, as would mass shootings. Murders for personal reasons probably would not. It could also make thugs desperate for a buck more violent. Instead of threating you, they'd shoot first and take the wallet from your corpse.

3/24/2008 11:27:15 AM

^ Disparities in weapon access are huge in Iraq. That's not a great example.

Also noteworthy is the drastic difference between a blade and a gun. With a gun you need to get far enough away and have a steady hand for defense. Blades require far more skill.

Tough to see a 5 year old successfully killing that 28 year old marine with a bowie knife, especially if the marine's conscious at the time.

Quote :

"If access to weapons alone stopped violence, wars wouldn't happen."

What about equal access to guns?

Quote :

"Everyone knows cops pack heat and wear armor."

Cops != Everyone

Read what I wrote again.

Moore could've been picked off in the street on the way to a cruiser if anyone outside the station had a weapon and heard the shots.

Quote :

"That piece won't necessarily protect you."

As I said already...

Not on its own, but it will enable you to protect yourself more efficiently as well as enable those around you to easily intervene to protect you if you're obviously being threatened.

Quote :

"Sometime it'll kill you."

Ditto not being able to protect yourself against a stronger opponent...

Quote :

"A gun your pants won't do you any good once the attacker gets close. For better or worse, physical strength and grappling skills still matter."

Sure they still matter, BUT FAR LESS. And with your own gun, you can still get the drop on somebody or a bystander can.

Quote :

"The gun is a great equalizer if it's in your hands..."

Or your neighbor's hands...or your classmate's...or a bystander walking by the ATM...

Quote :

"Murders for personal reasons probably would not."

I'm guessing you mean crimes of passion. Those can't be stopped. Letting a wife, husband, and affair participant ALL in on the gun-owning bonanza reduces the chances, I'd say.

Quote :

"It could also make thugs desperate for a buck more violent. Instead of threating you, they'd shoot first and be killed on the way to take the wallet from your corpse."

3/24/2008 1:11:49 PM

I love how you have armed bystanders damn near everywhere. I'm alone in my home right now. No bystanders nearby to protect me. Plenty of murders happen in similar circumstances.

I'm not against making it legal for everyone to carry. Far from it. I oppose state bans on weapons. I don't think removing such restrictions would be a magic bullet against violence.

Remember, in today's society, lack of legal restriction won't make everyone well-armed. Many folks can't afford a gun. Many wouldn't feel comfortable carrying one. You'd still have disparities in equipment.

3/24/2008 2:00:49 PM

^ I understand that the law is only part of the problem here.

In Gamecatland motherfuckers are issued a gun-voucher by Constitutional decree. Something.

Securing you from each other AND tyrannical gubment all at once, courtesy the founding wisebeards.

Someone in your home, or on their way, would have to weigh the possibility that you (1) own a weapon, (2) are proficient with it, (3) are near it, and (4) the same for all pedestrians and neighbors within earshot along the plotted escape route.

Begin a "See something? Do something." campaign similar to the NYC 9/11 "See something? Say something." campaign. Just pitching.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ...]

3/24/2008 2:06:40 PM

South Texas during the 1910s could be another example of violence in armed populations. Provoked by manipulation from Mexico and longstanding injustices, some Hispanics tried to start a revolution. Both sides had weapons. Lawmen got into gunfights with Hispanic civilians who then became rebel leaders. The prospect of getting shot didn't sufficiently deter people from violence.

On the other hand, officials did attempt to disarm Hispanics once things got hot. The conflict ended up killing hundreds of Hispanics but only a couple dozen Anglos. It does suggest that being armed won't necessarily protect you from a more powerful group. Hispanic attempts at self-defense seemed to be answered by bloodier and bloodier reprisals.

3/24/2008 2:31:03 PM

LOL YEA

LETS HAVE A BUNCH OF 17-21 YEAR OLDS RUNNING AROUND CAMPUS WITH PISTOLS

LOLOL

3/24/2008 3:15:51 PM

^ Because those CCPs are issued all the time to people under 21, you know how sherifs love to break the law.

Quote :

"Instead of threating you, they'd shoot first and take the wallet from your corpse."

You know, this comes up all the time, but studies of CCP around the country haven't borne it out, and when you think about it, it makes sense. The guys mugging you for your wallet on the whole would rather not add murder to their list of crimes. They threaten you because it makes their life easier.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 4:57 PM. Reason : edit]

3/24/2008 4:57:01 PM

Quote :

"LOL YEA LETS HAVE A BUNCH OF 17-21 YEAR OLDS RUNNING AROUND CAMPUS WITH PISTOLS LOLOL "

i love it.

people comming in here spouting crap they know nothing about.

3/24/2008 5:05:59 PM

Quote :

"You know, this comes up all the time, but studies of CCP around the country haven't borne it out, and when you think about it, it makes sense. The guys mugging you for your wallet on the whole would rather not add murder to their list of crimes. They threaten you because it makes their life easier."

Well, I don't think any state currently meets Gamecat's ideal level of armament. How many people actually carry guns on a daily base? Very few. That's not going have as much affect on behavior.

Of course, I'm sure some muggers would still threaten. They'd only shoot if you reached for the piece.

3/24/2008 5:28:37 PM