Shooting at US uni

[Sionnach Glic]

If I can get back to the original article, I have a bit of an update.

According to this, the gunman had a shotgun and two handguns, all purchased legally. He was supposedly on medication, which may have been a cause of this. From what I gather from this article, he was a model student. Weird to hear of someone just going off the deep end like this.

[Captain Seafort]

What the swiss aren't allowed to own handguns?

I'm not sure of the details, but I can't see a handgun being any good against an invading army - which is why the Swiss are required to posses weapons, as part of their militia.

And I had admitted the heroin routes might be hard to swap to handguns.

I wasn't disputing that, merly expanding on the reasons for it.

But the overland stuff and shipping. That would be easier than drugs, again because you wouldn't have to hide the stuff on the approach. Only after you'd crossed the boarder. And then there is the Canadian boarder which isn't even remotely secure.

Very true - over here Bandit Country was one of our biggest problem because of border as well as the terrain.

And the "guns already in the US" problem is a big one. It's not like gun ownership is some weird thing done by a handful of people. It used to be 50% of households legally had a gun in the early 90's. Now I think it's more like 40% but I imiagine illegal guns bring it back up to 50%. And people tend to own more than one gun. From surveys done a while back there must be over 200,000,000 guns in private hands in the US.

Indeed, it's the only truly logical objection to the introduction of a firearms ban on a similar scale to the UK's - the fact that it would be all but unenforcable.

However I have little confidence, given the current state of things, that even total bans would remove guns from criminals.

Of course they wouldn't, just as it hasn't here. The fact that a measure will not be 100% effective is not an argument against implementing it.

[sunnyside]

I think it's a big matter of perspective. If you come from the angle of "I've never touched a gun and think they're scary" than sure, maybe a ban would reduce the odds you get hurt or killed at some point. (though not necesarily if it makes criminals more brazen or a rampage isn't stopped).

But remember ~40% of American households do have a gun and a number of people (I don't know how many) carry concealed. Their safety would go down notably. And a lot of the people in question are far away from the police. Back when I lived in the country if I called the cops it'd be a half hour before one showed up. And that's if I was lucky.

Earlier you'd said.

2) Vigilantism is a bad thing - when people start considering their own weapons to be the first line of defence it undermines the rule of law, since it breeds a mentality of "shooting people is bad - except when I'm the one doing the shooting"

But really you are your own first line of defense. Also I don't think it's vigilantism until you're taking your weapon and going out to get some justice. Self defense is something else.

Again this isn't just a little meaningless thing. Americans defend themselves successfully with firearms over 700,000 times a year. And out where i used to live thieves were scared, not like they are here with tighter gun laws.

Once I drove in on some people who were probably there to rob a neighbors place (before cell phones) but they still shot out the other side right quick. Probably figuring that I was driving a pickup in the country and so I had a gun.

With a gun ban they would have known I was alone, didn't (initially) know they were there, didn't have any way to call for help unless I got into the house, and if they attack me there was nearly a 0% chance of somebody just coming along.

[Captain Seafort]

I think it's a big matter of perspective. If you come from the angle of "I've never touched a gun and think they're scary" than sure, maybe a ban would reduce the odds you get hurt or killed at some point. (though not necesarily if it makes criminals more brazen or a rampage isn't stopped).

But remember ~40% of American households do have a gun and a number of people (I don't know how many) carry concealed. Their safety would go down notably. And a lot of the people in question are far away from the police.

On the contrary - I come from the approach of "I've handled a gun, I've seen the sort of damage they do to inanimate objects, and I don't think any civilian has the right to posses that sort of individual power". What gives anyone the right to decide, on their own, who lives and who dies? That's what civilian possession of firearms means.

Soldiers, and to a lesser extent the police, have the backing of society as a whole, or at the very least the backing of government - they are trained, they have made a conscious decision to enter a profession in which they may have to take a life in the course of that profession, and they have specific rules of engagement under which they may open fire. Civilians have not.

[Teaos]

Threads like this always make me laugh.

America has lots of shotings then everyone throws in there unsubstantiated opinions.

It must be because of all the guns... dispite the fact other countrys have just as many guns or more such as Canada yet far lower crime.

It must be a race problem, they have so many different cultures it causes problems... dispite the fact that many countrys have the same issue.

It must re rap music... but many countrys have that to.

It must be video games... but wait other countrys have them to. Others such as Korea have far higher play rates with more violent games that arent even allowed in America yet they have bugger all crime.


No offence guys but I find this type of talk pathetic. Its the type of things politicians do. Make unsubstantiated claims against something they dont like.

What really causes it? It may very well be a combination of many of the issues above which add to it but it primarily a mentality. Americans live in fear of everything and for that they have no one to blame but themselves.

[Captain Seafort]

But really you are your own first line of defense. Also I don't think it's vigilantism until you're taking your weapon and going out to get some justice. Self defense is something else.

What's self defence though? He's got a gun? A knife? His fists? He's looking at you funny? Everyone's got different standards, and while the more absurd examples may be dealt with by the courts, that's no consolation if you're six foot under because someone didn't like th way you glanced at them.

Again this isn't just a little meaningless thing. Americans defend themselves successfully with firearms over 700,000 times a year. And out where i used to live thieves were scared, not like they are here with tighter gun laws.

Incompetent or ineffective plods is a reason to get the plods doing their job properly. Not to rely on the crooks uncertainty as to whether you're armed to do it for them.

Once I drove in on some people who were probably there to rob a neighbors place (before cell phones) but they still shot out the other side right quick. Probably figuring that I was driving a pickup in the country and so I had a gun.

With a gun ban they would have known I was alone, didn't (initially) know they were there, didn't have any way to call for help unless I got into the house, and if they attack me there was nearly a 0% chance of somebody just coming along.

Crooks running in fear of an individual being armed is one possible outcome. Another is "he might have a gun, lets shoot him first, just in case". I'd rather rely on my legs and wheels to get me out of trouble than my marksmanship.

[sunnyside]

and they have specific rules of engagement under which they may open fire. Civilians have not.

Actually the laws are actually pretty harsh in a lot of places on when civilians can fire. Generally if you're involved in a shooting expect to be talking to the police and even if you acted in self defense you may still get in trouble. I don't have a problem with that though, if you have to question whether it's worth it to go to jail for pulling a trigger it means you shouldn't be pulling it.

And again nobody is advocating mobbing up and going vigilante. It's generally "You or me" situations.

And Teaos has some good points though I don't know that I agree with his final conclusion. Though I'm sure fear of being in a situation where you really want to have a gun but you don't has an effect.

[Sionnach Glic]

Teaos, for once I agree completely with you. There's little point in trying to pin this all on one simple factor, when it's a multitude of different things that causes this.

I can't really speak on the fear issue, though, as I really haven't a clue how fearfull US society is (or isn't, as the case may be).

[Captain Seafort]

and they have specific rules of engagement under which they may open fire. Civilians have not.

Actually the laws are actually pretty harsh in a lot of places on when civilians can fire. Generally if you're involved in a shooting expect to be talking to the police and even if you acted in self defense you may still get in trouble. I don't have a problem with that though, if you have to question whether it's worth it to go to jail for pulling a trigger it means you shouldn't be pulling it.

1) How does all the drama the one doing the shooting lands himself in help the bloke in the box?

2) Are you going to respond to the rest of the post (which the point about RoE was put in as an integral part of)?

[sunnyside]

If I can get back to the original article, I have a bit of an update.

According to this, the gunman had a shotgun and two handguns, all purchased legally. He was supposedly on medication, which may have been a cause of this. From what I gather from this article, he was a model student. Weird to hear of someone just going off the deep end like this.

Yeah that's something else we're seeing more of recently (sorry I missed this at first).

Though again gun laws have become stricter and the gun technology used hasn't improved all that much in regards to just firing into a crowd in about 125 years.

I do wonder about letting people on psychiatric meds buy guns. I might support legislation on that.

[Captain Seafort]

Though again gun laws have become stricter and the gun technology used hasn't improved all that much in regards to just firing into a crowd in about 125 years.

Weapons are a lot more compact these days, with a much higher magazine capacity - the first modern handgun was probably the M1911, and the first such weapon with a high-capacity magazine was the Browning Hi-Power in the mid-30s.

[sunnyside]

We're typing at the same time sometimes. Or the "go to newest post" button doesn't work right. I miss posts here and there.

On the "who decides" issue. If you're using a gun it means you or someone else needs to be in bodily danger. You can't shoot someone for looking at you funny. There are actually a fair number of laws that very state to state on what actually constitutes that. Still I'd imagine if you were in a relevant situation I'd imagine you yourself would make that decision with a knife if it came to it.

What are "plods"

And guns have certainly become better. Still when firing into a crowd (so accuracy doesn't matter so much) I don't think that four peacemakers would be very different from carrying two 12 round .45s.

Still besides all this stuff I think the key point in all this is that you seem to believe if gun bans were put in place it would dramatically reduce the amount of guns in the hands of criminals in situations where having a gun vs a knife matters.

Whereas I think it would only have a minor affect on criminals despite the major affect on law abiding citizens. The result being letting the criminals know they don't have to worry about running into a firearm despite having guns themselves. Or even if they don't have a gun they would still know if they outnumber a victim and they have long knives they can get away with it.

At the least the 700,000+ situations where Americans defend themselves with a gun per year would suddenly result in 700,000+ situations that don't turn out so well for the law abiding citizen.

But If we manage to lock our boarders down tight and something is done about the snitching thing it'd be time to revisit the issue.

[Deepcrush]

Americans live in fear of everything and for that they have no one to blame but themselves.

Americans live with fears in the city. I don't have those problems where I live. Crime is different where I live. The home owners out gun most gangs so they tend to leave us alone.

[Tsukiyumi]

...The home owners out gun most gangs so they tend to leave us alone.

That is exactly why I've been able to live relatively incident-free in a crime-ridden area of Houston for over five years.

[sunnyside]

See ^ That's what I'm talking about.

I mean lets play imagine you're a criminal Here it's 10:34 and I'm staying up all night at work. BUt lets say I decided to say "screw the thesis I'm going for a life of crime!" where would I go first?

Well I could drive out in the country. At first glance that would be a good move. Cops are far away. I could loot whole houses. I don't have a weapon but I could get a knife or two from any store when I head out.

Oh wait I might get my head blown off.

No I'm going to steel a page from the crimes I read about around here. I'll get myself a brick and wait on the outskirts of the Upenn campus. Sooner or later some body with an Ipod and a peace sign stenciled on the backpack is going to come along. If the first swing doesn't work what are they going to do? Say "Hey don't brick me bro!" while I swing again.

I'm pretty confident I won't run into guns. And I'm a big guy, and with a knife if need be. Even if one of their firends see me do it they'll just call the cops while I get the ipod, wallet and clear off.

Of course I might get caught because I don't know any good places to crash around there. I supposed I'd have to put on a mask or something before swinging and try to get into a bar or somehing. I haven't really thought this trough.

Actually that thought experiment reminded me of something else. Guns are an equalizer. If I'm looking to mug somebody I'm not looking for a guy like me. I'm looking for some dude who is a good five inches shorter than me.


EDIT: By the way I don't think that Britain shoudl start issuing piles of concealed carry permits. It's a different place in a different situation. And I think it might work for you best how you've got it.

How many people do you Brits know who have been mugged and/or assaulted? How many of your friends have had the "gone outside to find a murder victims body by the front steps" experience?

(It'd take a while to count up the muggings and assaults, and some people don't bother talking about it. The dead body thing would be two for me though.)

Do you work in a building at night where you know people have been murdered for walking in on a robbery?

Actually on that note how many of your muggings/robberies result in serious bodily harm? I get the feeling it might be higher here where people are more willing to make sure that witnesses either are dead or have enough trauma to forget. But I don't have numbers for that, just what I hear about.