|Deletions are marked like this.||Additions are marked like this.|
|Line 428:||Line 428:|
''2008-11-24 21:21:03'' [[nbsp]] Oh wow. I'm not even going to get into these comments. But may I say that I am saddened and disappointed by the existence of a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. --["Users/gurglemeow"]
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) is a non-partisan, national grassroots organization comprised of over 30,000 students, faculty members, parents, and concerned citizens across the nation who support the right of concealed handgun license holders to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. It has no ties with the Democratic, Republican, or other political parties or with the National Rifle Association.
1. To educate the public about the facts of concealed carry and dispel the many myths about concealed carry.
2. To push state legislatures and school administrations to grant concealed handgun license holders the same right to carry concealed handguns on college campuses that these license holders currently enjoy at most other places (movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, and so on).
Current & Future Plans:
Expanding SCCC awareness and membership among UC Davis students
Participating in SCCC's national Pitch It to the People (PIP) week (11/17-11/21)
~90% college students and ~10% faculty, parents, and concerned citizens
Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS) - SCCC's main opposition
California Penal Code Sections 12050-12054, governing concealed weapon carry
Davis Municipal Code Section 27.03.03, governing possession of firearms
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2008-08-06 10:43:36 Are there any stories of success about students who defended themselves using their concealed weapon? —JamesSchwab
Come to think of it, the most prominent would be the Appalachian School of Law incident in 2002. (My apologies for not having remembered it earlier.) Other incidents might be anecdotal (I can think of one such) and as such are harder to track down. —BrendanChan
2008-08-06 11:03:10 I would find Davis to be a much scarier place if I knew that people were walking around with concealed weapons. This is probably one of the safest places to live in the country, and the thought of people getting into gunfights (or asserting that they *could* get into a gun fight if they felt threatened) is truly frightening. No, the use of licensing does not make this more acceptable to me. Assume that someone has a concealed weapon. Could (would!) someone walk up to them and ask them to prove that they have a license for it? Of course not. By definition, no one would know that they have a concealed weapon. If we assume that a licensing process could somehow differentiate those people who would only use a weapon for self defense from those who might use it for non-legal uses (not actually possible, but let's assume it for the sake of discussion), then one might argue that only people who are licensed would be carrying a concealed weapon. But clearly, anyone who obtains a gun without going through the licensing process could *also* be carrying that gun in a concealed manner. So licensing has not bought you anything as an argument for concealment. Now assume that some percentage of people who might be carrying a concealed weapon might be crazy, unstable, have a grudge against society, etc. (Think Virginia Tech.) Do you know who those people are? Would you want to make it easier for someone to have such a weapon?
Note: A friend of mine (and someone else) died because access to guns was easy and legal. One of the two died because the other was carrying a concealed weapon, was mentally unstable because they had suddenly stopped taking the sort of medication that you aren't supposed to stop taking suddenly, and had easy and legal access to a gun. They were shot four or five times. The other killed themselves. The mentally unstable person would have had no trouble getting licensed to acquire a gun.
Dozens of people have died on college and high school campuses in the past few years because people had easy access to guns, and were able to bring them onto the campuses. The idea of making them even more widespread, and making them more prevalent on college campuses, is truly frightening. —IDoNotExist
That's exactly my point. Why should criminals be the only people to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, on campus? No matter how well campus or local police train for active shooter incidents, the fact is that they will take time to respond and the only individuals capable of stopping the shooter immediately are those in the immediate vicinity. And CHL holders would be able to stop the shooter with much fewer fatalities than if unarmed students rushed the shooter. Furthermore, SCCC has no position on firearm carry on the campuses of high, middle, or elementary schools. —BrendanChan
2008-08-06 11:19:07 James - There are, actually.
IDoNotExist - UC Davis was actually cited by Reader's Digest as one of the most dangerous college campuses in the U.S. Furthermore, licenses can be produced by concealed handgun license (CHL) holders on demand. SCCC is not about making it easier for people to carry a weapon, but about extending the rights of legal CHL holders to carry on campus when they can already carry everywhere else in society. —BrendanChan
I have heard that before, but that statistic has very little to do with crime. If I remember correctly, things like elevator malfunction were big factors in that study (supposedly UCD is horrid in this department). I don't think you will be shooting an elevator anytime soon. —MattHH
2008-08-06 11:53:01 The fact that they can carry them elsewhere is also very frightening.
While I would not put much faith in Reader's Digest as a source of high quality journalism, I can cite some actual crime statistics (with references!) for the Davis campus:
As reported by the UC Davis campus to the Department of Education, for 2004 - 2006:
In 2004-2006, there were 0 cases of murder or manslaughter at Davis. These are the cases where you might be legally justified in using deadly force (ie. a gun) for self defense.
The most common crime here in those years was Burglary 51 - 75 incidents per year in a campus of 30,000 and a town of 50,000-60,000. That means that your odds of being hit with a burglary were between 0.17% and 0.25%, depending on which year you decide to use.
The next most common crime was forcible sex (I assume this means rape, attempted rape, etc.) There were 22-38 cases in campus for those three years. That means that your odds of being a victim of this crime was between 0.12% and 0.044%.
The next most common crime was motor vehicle theft, with 15 incidents per year.
Off campus, there were 0 cases of murder or manslaughter. The most common crime was burglary. In a town of about 60000 people, in the worst year (2004), there were 23 incidents of burglary. Your chances of being burgled in 2004 were 0.0383%.
Now let's look at FBI statistics for the most dangerous campuses in the country. According to the San Francisco Examiner, Davis is not among the most violent campuses.
Because the Examiner breaks down their statistics differently than the ones on the DOE site, we can't make a direct comparison of the statistics. However, Davis is definitely not on the list. You can, however, go to the Department of Education site linked to above, and obtain comparable statistics for any campus you wish. A quick look at Michigan State, which is the last ranked campus in the Examiner article, shows far more incidents of physical violence on their campus than at Davis. —IDoNotExist
2008-08-06 12:09:57 I should also note that were UCD to be among the most dangerous campuses in the country (which, based on the article cited above, it is not), it would still be an extremely safe to be. *Some* college campus has to be among the most dangerous, but the entire pool of college campuses has a fairly low crime rate. So the difference between the most dangerous and least dangerous campuses is quite small. A better comparison would be between college campuses and other environments, such as cities. In any case, it hardly seems to justify the desire to carry lethal weapons. —IDoNotExist
2008-08-06 12:39:03 Brendan, would you mind providing links to those stories.
Also, as a Davis native we are by no means one of the most dangerous campuses in the US. —JamesSchwab
2008-08-06 14:26:57 Certainly.
2008-08-06 14:27:42 I apologize, however, as the blog is not limited to incidents involving students. —BrendanChan
2008-08-06 14:39:06 Do you have links to specific stories about colleges? I don't have the time to look through many years of stories. —JamesSchwab
2008-08-06 15:07:34 No, I'm afraid not. The owner of the blog isn't affiliated with SCCC, and he hasn't elected to create an index of blog entry tags that I could use to point directly to incidents involving students. I spent some time reading it myself and am aware of time constraints. —BrendanChan
2008-08-06 15:52:37 Huh? That's your argument so far? A "Reader's Digest" article and someone's anecdotal blog? You really should offer a better argument for this than the one you've offered so far to Jim. We have a police force on campus, we are an extremely safe campus, so what will concealed carry bring to the table ? —JesseSingh
Actually, each of the stories has a link to the source, right there at the beginning.—JoePomidor
But, like Jim, I don't have time to look through all those years. If there are specific stories where a gun on campus helped stop some crime, then whoever is making the argument for change should use them. Particularly, I'm wondering about this Reader's Digest article about Davis being one of the most dangerous campuses in America. I'm calling bullshit until I see said article.—JesseSingh
2008-08-06 16:53:17 When has allowing more guns anywhere made anything safer? I'm interested in the facts so I'll go check out the references for myself, but. . .I'm skeptical at this point. Both my professional and personal experience tell me this is a bad idea for about a thousand reasons. I'll have to go read up and come back once I'm better informed.
This has started a spirited discussion. What do other's think about this issue? I'm interested.
Statistically, crime has decreased whenever and wherever CCW laws have been promulgated. —BrendanChan
Prove it. What is your source for this assertion? —IDoNotExist
Contact me and I'll send it to you. —BrendanChan
Oddly, I would really prefer not to give my contact information to random people who like to walk around with hidden deadly weapons. It definitely does not make me feel safe - which, I think, I was one of the main points in this discussion! If you believe that your assertion is accurate, why not post a link to your source, so that people can decide for themselves? —IDoNotExist
Equally oddly, nowhere in this article have I stated that I walk around with a hidden deadly weapon. In the main article I've invited viewers to email me for further information, which, I think, does not put them in danger of being attacked. No one yet has invented a system whereby people can be shot over the Internet. And frankly, I can't be bothered wasting time trying to find out your physical location from your email address, because as far as I know it is impossible and I have better things to do. —BrendanChan
I think I can pinpoint this particular spot as the point at which this debate devolved into personal (albeit fairly tame) commentary. You might make a better case if you don't imply unproveable things about other debaters. —JoePomidor
It's nothing personal about him. I do not feel safe around people who are carrying guns, especially if I don't know them, and sometimes even if I do. While Brendon is right that I don't know whether or not he actually does so, given the fact that he has spent so much energy on advocating them, I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that someone who has spent so much energy on advocating strongly for people to be able to carry them on campus, and who clearly feels much safer if he is allowed to carry one, might actually have one! —IDoNotExist
Please note that I am A) under 21 [stated at the end of the comments] and B) working so energetically to change the system within the law. If I wanted to have one, I'm sure there would be a much easier way to get one via criminal means instead of spending all of this time and effort. —BrendanChan
Reduction in crime? Really? That's not the impression I was given. Honestly, I think I 'm just uncomfortable with this idea. I've just encountered too many students at UC Davis that I would never want walking around with a gun. Don't think that they could handle it. People always give the reason that they want a gun for self-defense. Okay, but there is difference between shooting practice and using a gun in a crisis situation (e.g. Virginia Tech). Many people think that they would know what to do, but they actually don't. Military and police officers are trained to deal with crisis situations. The average 18 year old? Not so much. Chances are they would be so freaked that they would shoot an innocent person. Or their own foot. Just saying. I am a victim of crime and I wouldn't feel any safer walking around with a gun. And I actually know about guns and am comfortable shooting. —CurlyGirl26
Again, feel free to contact me for information. If you want. —BrendanChan
Also, an afterthought: the average 18 year old Californian is not allowed to possess a handgun, concealed or otherwise, on campus or otherwise (minimum age 21). Furthermore, the Posse Comitatus Act disallows military from taking part in LEO operations.
You might be interested in the DC crime rates, because they peak in the 1990's, even though a gun ban was set in place in 1975. Though this does not prove that promoting guns has any anti-crime use, it does show that banning them has no effect on violent crime rates, and may cause them to go up.—JoePomidor
I'm not sure that it demonstrates anything in favor of either case, because there are many factors that may go into determining the level of violent crime in a city. For example, level of employment and employment opportunities, income / poverty levels, level of drug use, presence or absence of gangs or organized crime, policies of the city government, applicable state and federal laws, degree of enforcement of those laws (number and distribution of police, for example), changes in city demographics, state of the economy, availability of weapons used in violent crimes, etc. You would need to do a controlled study to determine which factors are actually causal here. (I believe such studies have been done (I once talked to a UC professor who studied it), but I don't know the correct sources to cite myself, so I'm not going to make any claims about it.) Also, note that in DC, even though there was a gun ban in place, you can go to VA or MD where such bans do not exist in minutes. (In CA, it might be moderately inconvenient to have to drive for several hours each way. In DC, you can get to two states in under 15 minutes in the worst case, and to 6 or 7 within two hours.) A much better comparison might be between per capita violent crime and death rates in the US (or US cities) and those in other countries which do not permit private gun ownership. —IDoNotExist
2008-08-06 18:07:17 I doubt that allowing guns on campus will make school safer, but it could make school more fun! —BrentLaabs
Thanks, but firearms are serious. —BrendanChan
2008-08-06 19:26:14 Best of luck on getting concealed permits in California! —StevenDaubert
Thanks, Steven. —BrendanChan
Well, truth be told, Yolo County is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the state to get a CCW in. —wl
2008-08-06 19:31:37 I have to say that I truly feel sorry for any person that feels they need to carry a gun on our campus to feel safe. I have never felt that type of fear, even now, as I type this, I am sitting in downtown Chicago at ten thirty at night and I feel perfectly safe walking home without a loaded weapon. I am wondering if the leader of the group can tell me exactly why he is so afraid? I don't mean the word "afraid" to be demeaning, I just can't think of any other motivation to want a handgun other then fear of attack.
This is not about being afraid. If you knew that there was a rainstorm about to strike Chicago and you had to go out, would you wear a raincoat and take an umbrella? Of course you would! Except that active shooters are warped but not stupid; they are not going to call up their targets and announce that they are coming. This is why CHL should be allowed on campus so that if and when an incident happens students will have the ability to defend themselves and others. —BrendanChan
If I thought that someone might be likely to shoot me on campus, I would either not hang around the campus, or at the very least, I would find myself a nice bullet proof vest. Oh, and call the police. That seems to me to be a better solution than getting into a gunfight! By the way, let me post a hypothetical question to you. Suppose you DID get into a gunfight with someone. The police show up. Assuming that you are both still alive, do they now shoot both of you, or just one? I can imagine the cop thinking that there are two students with guns pointed at people, at least one of whom (and maybe both) represents an immediate danger to everyone else on campus. There's a good chance that the cop would drop both of you in a hurry. —IDoNotExist
Bulletproof vests are in fact regulated at least as strictly as firearms, possibly more so. I don't know as much about the laws governing possession of bulletproof vests, though, so don't take what I say for fact. Police will take time to show up, during which time you could be dead, possibly from gunshot wounds to the head (ref. North Hollywood shootout).
To answer your hypothetical question, police receive tactical training that teaches them to expect both armed good guys and bad guys. As long as you are not pointing the gun in their direction or in anyone else's, their objective is to preserve life and to make sure no more shots get fired, so ordering you to safety your weapon and disarm yourself takes precedence. No Terminator 2 SWAT team rules of engagement will come into play, where the SWAT team just shot that scientist without any warning or command to drop what he was holding, because that opens the door for lawsuits. If you have a CHL and have encountered the shooter, that makes one student with one pistol/revolver and one student/professor with more than one sidearm and/or a shotgun or rifle (following typical armament patterns for Dawson College, Monash University, Virginia Tech, Ecole Polytechnique, Concordia University shootings). Any police officer is going to be more suspicious of the more heavily armed individual.
And again, you can't avoid hanging around campus because you don't know that the shooter is coming. By the time the alert system tells you that he is there, you're going to be A) already on campus, so it won't matter, or B) off-campus even before the shooter arrived, so it won't matter. —BrendanChan
I'm sorry. That just doesn't follow with reality to me. There are many many instances of police shooting people who were *unarmed* but whom they thought were armed. Google for "police shoot unarmed", and you will find a long list. Same for soldiers - they will shoot first and ask questions later if they think they are in enough danger. Also, as I recall from watching Columbine live on CNN, the police who surrounded the school had no idea if one of the students leaving the school was the shooter or not. All students running from the school had to run out with their hands up. I can't imagine police showing up on a campus where people have just been shot, finding someone with a gun, and *not* immediately trying to take out that person. Even though the second person isn't actually the "real" shooter, the police wouldn't know that, and would see someone with a gun and apparently demonstrated deadly intent. —IDoNotExist
So the CHL holder puts his gun away when he sees policemen and/or is commanded to do so. The whole point of CHLs on campus is to defend oneself, and the point is kind of moot if you successfully defend yourself but wind up getting shot by the policemen responding to the incident. By comparison, school shooters aren't *nearly* as likely to voluntarily disarm, or preemptively disarm if the circumstances permit. —BrendanChan
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your license holder happens to be in the classroom attacked by a school shooter. Now, you have one person deliberately trying to kill students in a crowded classroom, and you have another person shooting at them. Better hope that no one gets caught in the crossfire. Now everyone is in danger from *two* shooters, one of whom is the "real" shooter, and one of whom is shooting at the shooter. Now imagine that your campaign is successful and you now have *at least* two people with concealed carry licenses in the room (one of whom, of course, may even be the "real" shooter.) Person A comes into the room and starts shooting. Person B takes out their gun and starts shooting. Person C, who was in front of persons A and B (and therefore couldn't see who the "real" shooter was), sees two people shooting with guns, picks one, and shoots. In fact, let's take your argument to logical conclusion (assuming that you are successful in convincing the campus or state government to allow these licenses.) You now have a room with *many* people with guns, and one angry and suicidal shooter. (The shooters at these events typically take their own life after taking those of others.) The shooter won't be dissuaded by people with guns - they don't care! But now you have lots of people shooting at lots of other people, and lots of people running around trying to get out of the gunfire, with some or all of the people unable to tell who is the real shooter. Result: lots of people get shot by people who are trying to take out the real shooter! —IDoNotExist
You're absolutely right, that is a much better scenario than a single angry shooter with no opposition whatsoever. Seriously, though, the people returning fire aren't firing randomly into a crowd of people, they are aiming, which is something that responsible gun users do. If a lone gunman was loose on the campus with no opposition, he could shoot at his leisure until the authorities (read: people with guns) arrive. How can you possibly imply that having responsible gun owners on campus during such an attack would actually make the attack worse? Also, your scene with lettered students is a little off as well, since it seems to assume that there is no period of time between a normal day and a full-out gun fight. I think it's safe to assume that there would be some point where the lone gunman (or woman) would stand up and shoot people all by themself, thereby making it fairly obvious who the single intruder is.—JoePomidor
In a high stress situation, people aren't going to take the time to sort out who is who. Even in low stress situations, this can be very difficult. Example: I don't know if they have them locally, but if you go to a place where you play laser tag in a complex maze, you'll notice that people on the same team sometimes shoot each other, even though they are lit up with lights indicating which team they are on. The way the game works, if you are hit by someone else, you lose points and can't do anything for some amount of time. So you have to shoot before your opponent shoots you. Keep in mind that this is a perfectly safe environment. No one is in any danger, and the only thing at stake is a meaningless score. Even in this situation, it's surprising how many times people accidentally shoot their own team mates, thinking that they might be on the other team. Yeah, it's bad that we have to wait for police sometimes. But vigilante justice isn't particularly appealing either. Also, keep in mind that this is not the only situation in which a gun might be used. Let's say that someone legally carrying a weapon gets drunk, or gets into an argument. They lose control. Someone gets killed. Or maybe they have a grudge or some other motive for using a gun. They carry the gun - perfectly legally - and then use it to kill someone. Or, as in the case of my friend, someone who is mentally unstable (in this case because they suddenly stopped taking their medication) gets access to a gun and decides to take out themselves and someone who made them upset at the same time. Why would you want to make it more likely? —IDoNotExist
And again, who said anything about vigilante justice? SCCC DOES NOT advocate it, because it's not what responsible gun owners/CHL holders do. Nor is handling a gun while getting drunk or otherwise intoxicated. Also consider trying to take off a safety (or, in certain guns, multiple safeties) while intoxicated. As for the chances of arguments getting out of hand and causing gunfights or spree shootings, that has also been addressed in the past by law enforcement officers comparing the situation before and after the passage of CHL legislation; their fears were unfounded.
Addressing your laser tag arena scenario, lecture halls and campus buildings are not usually A) complex mazes or B) very dark. It is easier to differentiate targets on campus than in a laser tag arena.
Finally, the point is that there are bad apples in any population, but that there are far fewer among CHL holders than among the general population. As for gaining access to a gun, that's a failure of the gun legislation (ref. VT), and again, we are NOT for expanding who can get their hands on a gun. What we advocate is extending the rights of people who have already passed the FBI/NICS background check and acquired their CHLs to carry on campus, same as everywhere else. Putting a gun into the hands of any John Q. Public off the street IS asking for it, because that increases the risk that he'll do something illegal with it. Less frequent with a CHL holder. —BrendanChan
2008-08-06 20:08:52 Some thoughts:
I know a few people who feel the need to carry guns. They all seem quite worried that *someone* will suddenly attack them at some point, and that they will be able to deal with this by shooting the other person, or that potential attackers will be afraid to attack them because the attacker won't know who might have a gun. (Of course, this is already the case, whether doing so is legal or not.) I'm not sure why they are so convinced that someone will attack them. Some of them also seem to associate having a gun with their self image. Being able to carry a gun makes them feel better about themselves and their insecurities. This may or may not apply to other people who feel the need to carry them.
The other observation is that in order to generate high ratings (ad sale revenue), many media outlets now cover and emphasize murders and other sensational and violent events as if they are commonplace. In reality, your chances of being in a violent incident have actually decreased over the years, and there are not very many incidents per capita. However, if you don't put the sensational reporting of the media in context, you might believe that anywhere you look, someone is likely to go after you. (Just as everyone on the Internet is scary and dangerous, right?!) —IDoNotExist
2008-08-06 20:32:03 I support Self Defense too, slight difference of opinion however. I think it's cool to see gun-rights groups emerging on campus, you should get in touch with Davis College Republicans and Davis College Democrats. I'm sure both groups would be interested in collaborative debates about gun issues. You could possibly achieve the educational objective in doing so and I know there's passion amongst libertarian leaning liberals in support of concealed carry. Best of luck to the organization, always good to see a diversity of thought. —GregWebb
Thanks, Greg. I agree completely, and will consider contacting DCR and DCD. —BrendanChan
2008-08-07 11:11:39 You don't need a gun for self defense. Unless it is defense from another gun. Also if you kill someone with any weapon in "self defense" you may be tried for murder and use of excessive force. —TusharRawat
2008-08-07 12:03:06 Of course there is going to be a fine line between justifiable homicide and excessive force; however the point is that CHL holders (as well as policemen) shoot to STOP, not to KILL. A CHL is not by any means a license to kill. By the same token, CHL holders are not going to be vigilantes, because that kind of action is at the very least going to get their CHL pulled and more likely it will result in prison time.
Furthermore, according to law enforcement studies, if someone has a knife and is within 21 feet of you, he can reach attack range before you can draw your weapon and command him to stop (or take it off safety and fire if necessary). —BrendanChan
2008-08-07 17:58:08 There is, of course, a difference in the lethality of bullets that are fired with the intention of stopping someone rather than killing them. Much like phasers in Star Trek, which have a stun setting, modern bullets can be placed into a non-lethal "stop" setting. In this setting, the bullets will not permanently damage any vital organs. Rather they will irritate their target, or make them fall gently to sleep, so that they can wake up refreshed, having failed in their attack and been arrested.
Stopping power is simply a euphemism used by the gun industry for the likelihood of killing someone.
Red lights stop. Phasers stun. Guns kill. Although sometimes they stop people too. Permanently. —IDoNotExist
Oddly enough, some types of bullets, when fired, are nonlethal, because they enter an arm or a leg, rather than the core of the body. This is not to say that guns do not have plenty of potential for lethality, only that they can be used in a less-than-lethal way. Keep in mind, guns are only as evil as the people who use them.—JoePomidor
Along the same lines, phasers kill as well. I'm a Star Trek fan, and from memory I can probably cite half a dozen instances in which they've been used to kill. Many more if I am allowed time to do research.
Furthermore, since you've brought up stopping power, allow me to quote the FBI's own study "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" (Special Agent Urey Patrick, 1989):
"...regarding what is commonly referred to as 'stopping power'". It is not an invention of the gun industry, it's a colloquialism. I've seen it in Tom Clancy novels. Is he connected to the gun industry?
"When an officer shoots a subject, it is done with the expectation of immediately incapacitating that subject...Immediate incapacitation is defined as the sudden physical or mental inability to pose any further risk of injury to others." Note that this also applies to CHL holders, and that there have been cases where CHL holders and badged full-time law enforcement officers have been put on trial for the perception of excessive force. In the 2 that I know of, the CHL holder was found innocent and the LEO was wrongfully convicted. —BrendanChan
Actually, Clancy IS connected to the gun industry! In 1999, Clancy appeared in at least one advertisement for the gun industry, apparently just before the Columbine shootings. You can find an article on it on the CNN website here: http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/30/gun.ads/ —IDoNotExist
Also, I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that the top of your head has been killed off with phasers at least half a dozen times. ;-) —IDoNotExist
Just one? Also, did he know the Columbine shootings were coming? —BrendanChan
2008-08-07 20:25:38 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that gun target practice rewards you for shooting the target's chest, not their hand. Besides, shooting someone in the leg is not exactly good for them either, and if you miss, you kill them. Or someone else.
Back in 1994ish, a UC Davis student living in an apartment was shot when his roommate started playing with a loaded gun (his, I think) in their apartment. No one was being evil. The student was wounded or killed.
No one has ever died or been injured by a gunshot wound when there was not a gun somewhere nearby. Drive by knifing are not considered dangerous. —IDoNotExist
Sure, but have you ever heard of one actually taking place? The closest thing that I can think of is a jousting match.
Actually, most gun target practice involves hitting a bullseye, rather than a human target. Also, I'm not saying that gun-related accidents do not occur or that all gun-related deaths are premeditated murders. However, by this logic, any dangerous tool should be outlawed or restricted. There have never been any forklift-related injuries or fatalities when a forklift was not present, but that does not mean that forklifts are inherently dangerous when used properly and lawfully.
Lastly, in any given scenario where someone could discharge a gun in a way that is even semi-legitimate, the 'target' is not some innocent bystander, but rather a willful assailant. In such a case, the objective is to disable them, and in the absence of tasers and stun-guns (which a lot of people are also against for no good reason), a person who can shoot the target in a nonlethal manner is going to be a hero. The people who get concealed carry permits are not crackfiends and felons, they are regular citizens who have passed a series of tests of increasing difficulty (this being California), and who generally have a good reason for carrying a handgun. —JoePomidor
Of course gunshot wounds tend to be highly correlated with the presence of a gun. No one is suggesting that bullets can move under their own power. Nor can guns fire under their own power. Also, I'd like more specifics on that 1994 case. Did the student or his roommate have a CHL? More importantly, why was the roommate playing with the gun and why was the gun kept with its safety(ies) disengaged? That's 4 common-sense firearms safety rules broken already: treat the gun as if it's loaded; always keep the gun unloaded until ready for use; do not point the gun at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy; and keep fingers outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot. —BrendanChan
I do not have any idea why the roommate was playing with a gun. Perhaps they were drunk. Or stupid. Or trying to show off. Or unable to understand the consequences of their actions. I didn't know them. No one said that everyone who possesses a gun has good common sense. Or has taken a class on how to handle a gun safely. Or that they remember it if they did. I took a driver's ed class with a large group of people when I was 16, and you'd better believe that I would not trust my life to any of them if they were driving a car at that point. Your assumption seems to be that anyone who owns a gun will handle it in a safe, responsible, and legal manner. At least if they are licensed. Of course, if they are not, your assumption appears to be that they may attack you, therefore you must carry one of your own to get into a shootout so that you can kill them first before they kill you. You also seem to feel that this is likely enough to happen at Davis that people need to be carrying around guns in case this happens, despite the crime statistics for the campus which clearly demonstrate otherwise. —IDoNotExist
Then the gun owner should have stopped his roommate. Nobody in their right mind is going to let a drunk person handle a loaded weapon, especially given the fact that I'm assuming the gun owner loaded his own weapon and therefore KNEW it was loaded. Stupidity, unfortunately, is uncontrollable and can only be managed by other people, e.g. the gun owner. By California state law, one of the requirements for acquiring a CHL is taking a class on gun safety. Remembering the things you learned is a function of academic success whether pertaining to gun safety or not; by your logic very few people would succeed in gaining access to professional and grad schools because they forgot what they learned in college. Getting into a shootout to kill people before they kill me is vigilantism and under the law could qualify as first-degree murder because of the premeditation. Again, this is not what SCCC is for - we advocate having the ability to DEFEND ourselves, not to make preemptive attacks. CHL holders DO NOT seek out active shooters, they defend themselves. Doing otherwise could override the legal presumption of self-defense and allow the arrest and charging with homicide of the CHL holder. Finally, I am not saying it is likely enough at Davis, but then I'm sure that people would have said that it was equally unlikely at Virginia Tech on April 15, 2007. —BrendanChan
I dunno, a drive by knifing has the potential to be pretty lethal... —StevenDaubert
2008-08-07 23:18:07 Again, I don't think that the use of a license or a test is a good measure of who is likely to kill or injure someone with a gun. As an example out of today's headlines, take a look at alleged anthrax suspect Bruce Ivins (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703443.html?hpid=topnews). This was someone working in a high security government job whom, the government alleges, killed people using a deadly weapon (anthrax). Just because someone has not been convicted of a crime or can pass a test does not mean that they are not going to use a deadly weapon on somebody. In fact, by definition, 100% of people who do use a legally carried gun in a crime must have passed such a test!
As for outlawing forklifts, the difference here is that a forklift is designed for lifting heavy objects. It is not designed as a tool for killing someone. Very few people (if any) have died in intentional forklift attacks. Guns are designed to kill people (and in some cases, animals.) While it is certainly true that many guns are used perfectly legally and without violent intent, the purpose of a gun is to kill.
Let's look at the website of a popular gun magazine for confirmation of this (Guns and Ammo). You can find this at http://gunsandammomag.com/. The picture currently shown on the front page of their website shows a man with a rifle and a very large, very dead, buffalo. Quoting from the article at http://www.gunsandammomag.com/reloads/ga_betterburn_200807/index.html, "Penetration was more than 40 inches through bone and muscle." Clearly, we are not talking about something that is designed to shoot paper targets.
A quick Google search for other gun related sites brought up this one: http://www.impactguns.com/store/ . They talk about ordering machine guns on their home page. That's the sort of thing that you take to a war, not use for self defense.
Seriously - the main purpose of a gun is to kill - even the little tiny ones. You can pretend that no one would ever use it for any other purpose, or that people with a gun license would never use it for that purpose, except in self defense. The 33 dead and 23 injured at Virginia Tech, the 12 dead and 23 wounded at Columbine High School, the 1 dead and 19 injured at Dawson College, the two killed at Platte Canyon High School, the 6 dead and 5 injured at West Nickel Mines School, and the 9 dead and 12 injured at Jokela High School (Finland) demonstrate this quite well. So do my friend, and the other person who died that day. —IDoNotExist
Actually, I didn't pretend that guns are not capable of being used in a bad way. Also, the concealed carry permits would not permit the carrying of assault rifles or normal rifles on campus, but rather handguns alone. I personally don't know where I would stand on the idea of concealed handguns on campus, by the way, but I don't like it when people make claims that are not very accurate ("gun target practice rewards you for shooting the target's chest"), or unnecessarily alarmist ("That's the sort of thing that you take to a war, not use for self defense."). I understand your viewpoint and I might even agree, but it hurts your case when you don't use facts or arguments that relate to the subject matter. —JoePomidor
1) I am not by any means pretending that guns are incapable of killing. However it is the intention of the user that matters, and people with CHLs are statistically much less likely to commit crimes using their concealed firearms than members of the general population. For example, to the best of my knowledge, Seung-Hui Cho did not possess a concealed carry license.
2) SCCC does not have a position on firearm carry on the grounds of elementary, middle, or high schools.
3) Machine guns are indeed something you take to a war. However, try concealing one. I bet it's harder than it looks.
4) The sale of machine guns is regulated federally by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
5) Anthrax is not designed to kill, either. The fact that it does is a fact of microbiology. The fact that it is used to do so is a fact of motivation.
6) There are many types of knives: cooking knives, hunting knives, flensing knives, pocketknives, Swiss Army knives, combat knives, switchblades, stilettos, X-acto knives, ...etc. All of them are capable of killing, even though not all of them were designed for that specific purpose. Again, point 1. —BrendanChan
The anthrax was, in fact, a weaponized version that was designed and processed specifically to float in the air and lodge in people's lungs. See the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=googlenews_wsj . —IDoNotExist
So it was weaponized by human beings (which arguably is a function of intention). However, its killing capacity was ENHANCED, not created. So Ivins' anthrax was processed to float in the air and lodge in people's lungs. That still doesn't change the fact that inhalation anthrax is very deadly and can kill, regardless of whether or not it was processed. —BrendanChan
I would argue that the intention of the user of the gun is irrelevant. If the gun is used to shoot someone, do they care *why* you shot them? Well, probably not, especially if they are dead. Certainly, if they are still alive, and you shot them because you wanted to injure them, then the fact that you held a concealed carry license will not have much impact over whether or not you chose to shoot them again. If, on the other hand, you did not have such a license, it still will have no impact. —IDoNotExist
By that logic, the jails would be full of law enforcement officers who shot criminals in self-defense. It may sound kind of harsh, but I'm less concerned with the opinion of the illegally-acting shooter on the fact that someone legally shot him than with making sure I, and the people around me, survive. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the connection between CHL possession and how many times someone is shot, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you're referring to active shooter incidents. Then, taking your example, suppose I have a CHL license and have shot and wounded an active shooter - or anyone in general who is trying to kill me - but he is still capable of operating his firearm(s). In such a case, I'm going to shoot him again to make sure he doesn't open fire on me or anyone else (ref. 1986 FBI Miami shootout and Michael Platt). What I am not going to do is put half a dozen bullets into his head in front of everyone else, because that crosses the line from justifiable homicide into, probably, second-degree murder (crime of passion qualification) or manslaughter (excessive force qualification). —BrendanChan
Though I agree with the general notion that more weapons isn't the best means to peace and that sentiment is dear to my heart, if I may draw this discussion to a tangent of a meta-argument. Here I see a page about a group which has a purpose and an identity, and this datum is being included on the wiki. As I see it, the fact that the group is, is not a subject to debate, and such I cannot find a word on this page (I think) that is indisputable in this regard. Regardless of what they promote, heck Ku Klux Klown or Scientology, and how we may feel about this message, they still are free to promote it, just like the preachers with signs. Now, we can add in community opinion of this group, statistics regarding how well they are supported or denounced by the Davis community at large, and write of these things concisely, but a large argument of the disagreement is a pointless waste of our lifespans. If there is apparent datum that isn't true, then that is a matter of debate, but this page isn't to convince people of the truth status of this group's belief, it is just about the group itself. I will delete this argument, including my comment, later, not to support either side of this debate, but to be a jackass and end pointless bickering and infighting that at times past has led to many sad misuses of fists, firearms, and most powerful of all, words. ~D
2008-08-07 23:41:02 A question of statistics, how many members are officially reported on this groups SPAC registration and what are the demographic statistics of the local membership? (note that this data must be reported to SPAC at the time of club registration), Also for the given membership statistics, over how many campuses etc, lets get some research in. —DavidPoole
2008-08-07 23:58:28 I completely agree that the group (unlike myself) does apparently exist, supports a particular point of view, is promoting it, and has every right to do so. I disagree that removing discussion about the group or its views is productive. The group is promoting something that:
1) Does not appear to be necessary, based on statistical data
2) Is not (at least in my opinion) likely to enhance the quality of life for campus residents, but may put residents in severe danger
3) Is the subject of a major national debate, which likely will play a part in the current election.
4) May be based on incorrect or invalid assumptions (as the discussion may or may not show.)
The discussion is a valid debate on the merits of the ideas that this group espouses. It also has not devolved into a flame war, although it has certainly become emotional. —IDoNotExist
Looking at their site, they do make use of some pathetic fallacies, and yes, statistics would be nice. I also personally agree that adding additional firearms on a campus will likely not have a positive impact on student qualities of lives for as many students that would feel secure with a firearm, there are likely as many or more that would feel quite a loss of security that there exists students and others with firearms on campus. I do not disagree with any of your claims here, I think that they are all true, and this indeed has yet to become a flame war, I am just wondering if this sort of debate should be on the page about the group in as much as all group contraversies eventually end up on a separate /contraveries or /debate page, as with Abortion etc. So it isn't so much the value of the debate, but a worry about the implications of its development on this page. ~D
2008-08-08 10:02:47 DavidPoole - we are not registered with SPAC yet. That's a future objective. As for total SCCC membership, it is currently more than 32,000 members over 500-odd campuses. —BrendanChan
Ah, okay, I would like at this time to note that it takes a minimum five members for form an SPAC recognized club, as you are not registered, I should ask, how many people are working on this group? ~Dp
At current count, the requisite minimum. I am currently taking summer classes and therefore have limited time to devote to SCCC activities. -BC
2008-08-08 10:23:11 How does this group stand on non-concealed weapons on campus? in most all cases you can get stopped for carrying a replica/airsoft gun or even foam noodle much less an actual firearm or weapon (without permission from admin, excluding rotc and their armory). —DavidPoole
SCCC has no official position on open carry of firearms or other weapons, on campus or elsewhere. —BrendanChan
Yet it seems logical, if you support people carrying weapons in a hidden manner, you do support people carrying weapons, or are you additionally opposed to people seeing your weapon? But if you are against it being seen, thus always concealed, you couldn't really use it effectively, rendering it a bit useless in terms of defense. ~DP
I'm not familiar with the precise details of California concealed weapons law, but I know that there are clauses in those of some other states' which dictate that concealed carry means CONCEALED carry - if you have a concealed weapons permit and open-carry your firearm, that constitutes grounds for permit revocation (and possibly criminal prosecution above and beyond that). When I say I am against it being seen, I mean unless it needs to be seen, it shouldn't and won't be. -BC
2008-08-09 01:39:43 Curiously, how many of the members, both local and nationally, actually have a concealed carry permit? —DavidPoole
my bet is next to none in California... Why not just be happy with open carry which is easier to get? Oh thats right if you carry it in a holster it's concealed, and if you carry it your brandishing it silly California —StevenDaubert
Also, open carry creates a disturbance level (ref. IDoNotExist's comment re feeling less safe in the presence of concealed carriers) that concealed carry does not. If they're concealed, how does it make you feel less safe? After all, you don't know that the people around you are carrying. I'd think that OC would disturb you more than CCW. —BrendanChan
David - To answer your question, none of the UC Davis members of SCCC have concealed carry permits; we're all under 21. As for SCCC as a whole, exact numbers can't be obtained, but 65% of the 32,420 members is a reasonable estimate, so about 21,070. —BrendanChan
2008-11-15 17:25:40 While I am a strong proponent of the second amendment and am disgusted by the plethora of unconstitutional gun laws on the books at both the state and federal levels, I don't think that there is a reason for this organization to be active in the State of California. Concealed carry in general is in a bad place in CA. In the most populated areas in this state, you need to be a professional, a campaign donor to the sheriff, a law enforcement officer, a body guard, or a high profile rich person in order to get the permit to legally carry. If you go to some place like San Francisco, only being a LEO works. We need to fix these problems first before even attempting to repeal the laws that prohibit those lucky few with CCW permits from carrying on campus without the written permission of the Chancellor. —WilliamLewis
I agree; however, the implicit view is that restrictive laws and no-permit university policies are opposite sides of the same coin. Please see the section "From the Horse's Mouth" at this link: http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm. —BrendanChan
2008-11-22 19:53:52 How come there are an awful lot of people in the United States with guns (and all of them claim it's to protect themselves or hunt) and yet—the United States seems to have an awful lot of crime. And hasn't the gun sales in recent years gone up? And yet, not much reduction in crime? Doesn't Canada have a lot of guns, but not much crime? Has anyone figured out why the United States has lot of deaths caused by shootings (when compared to Canada, England, et al)? Has anyone figured this out? —CurlyGirl26
There needs to be a distinction drawn between lawful and unlawful self-protection. A gang member with a criminal record could easily - and truthfully - say that he is carrying a pistol to protect himself against rival gang members! Consider that various studies have shown that concealed weapons permit holders are far less likely to commit violent crimes than members of the general population. —BrendanChan
2008-11-23 10:01:39 Justification/Opinion: Skimming through the comments a lot of people seem to point out that the only reason for carrying a handgun is fear. I prefer to think of my support for concealed carry as a desire to be prepared for the worst even though I hope for the best. School shootings happen regardless of the concealed carry policy on a campus because, let's face it, if someone is planning on going about a murderous rampage they will hardly be concerned with breaking the law. Restricting access to guns from law abiding civilians only means that those who wish to arm themselves for the unfortunate moment when they require self-defense will not do so; criminals can't be expected to and thinking that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them for nefarious purposes is naive. Unless you can un-invent weapons, individuals who want to harm others will always find a way. I'm sure many of you will write me off as paranoid for thinking this but it is true. Someone who is crazy, vicious will find a way to get a gun; I know from experience that an ex-con who can't legally buy a gun will do so anyway.
School shooting information: In 1966 there was a school shooting in Texas. A young man, Whitman, locked himself in the university clock/bell tower observation deck with rifles and began picking off students. The situation was resolved in part because of the civilian response to the situation. Police officers at the scene credited the civilians (who used their legal fire arms in an attempt to stop Whitman) for restricting his movements, keeping him from being able to continue his attack and distract him. In fact when the tower was infiltrated, it was with the aid of two civilian sharp shooters.
In this specific case Whitman was suffering from a brain tumor. Whitman sought help and even indicated that something was probably wrong with him in his suicide note. Prior to the shooting he killed his mother and wife with a knife. As in Columbine and VTech, there were warning signs and appropriate medical care was not sought/provided. Perhaps if psychiatric care were able to weed out every single person who poses a threat to society there wouldn't be a need for self-defense weapons but unfortunately that is impossible. —OliviaY
You are right that criminals will find a way to get guns no matter what. And I agree with much of what you say. However, I think that Texas situation was the exception and not the rule. I understand the rationale that people should be able to protect themselves in such situations. However, having a gun doesn't prove that such students would know what to do in a crisis. I'm not sure if more guns at VA Tech or Columbine would have prevented any deaths. Instead, you have a bunch emotional and terrified people with guns. I imagine that a greater bloodbath is the more likely result. I don't know. Do most or all civilians who carry also have tactical training? Or is it that they've fired a few rounds at the local shooting range and think that they would know what to do in a real life emergency? I see both sides of the issue, but I just don't know that I'm convinced that more guns are the answer. I would like to see colleges and universities beef up security and do more to prevent/deal with these situations (using a multi-disciplinary approach). I would place my trust in trained professionals with guns over some gun toting civilian any day. And I have been a victim of crime so it's not like I don't understand the need to be prepared. I've thought about it for myself. And I'm not anti-gun, I grew up around them and have respect for them. But I will be reading more about this. I don't think there are any easy answers here. But I do like reading everyone's feedback.—CurlyGirl26
By no means is having legalized concealed carry on campus the be-all, end-all answer, as expressed by at least one former SCCC board official who is still a member in good standing.
Consider CCWUSA's course catalog, which includes training on concealed carry and defensive handgun tactics that appear to match the tactical training you are describing. (http://www.ccwusa.com/site/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=8&MMN_position=5:5) —BrendanChan
Just curious about a hypothetical case. I hear shooting in the quad, someone falls next to me, everyone draws a gun.. who do I shoot? clearly it was that guy there, bang! chaos. That would be so funny in its self destructiveness. Right now for all those who may also illegally be carrying a gun on campus for whatever reason, that the guy with the gun is the crazy shooter, so shoot him. ~DP
What reason would everyone have to draw a gun? IDoNotExist made a similar objection above. -BC
2008-11-23 15:51:05 If you want another example: School shooting in Pearl Mississippi in 1997. Luke Woodham shot and killed 2 students but was then stopped by the Vice Principal who retrieved a gun from his car.
Or in Israel (which I recognize has a slightly different danger level) this year there was a terrorist attack/shooting in a Seminary which was halted when one student heard the gun shots, grabbed his weapon and killed the assailant.
I understand the fear that tons of people will draw their weapons and more chaos will occur but that has yet to happen(?) whereas there are many cases when an individual or individuals who are armed manage to help. *? as I don't know for a fact but presume I would have heard about it by now from someone if there were such a case. Also I think that there are fewer individuals who want firearms than those who do not, so it is rather exaggerated to imagine that everyone would suddenly draw a weapon. —OliviaY
2008-11-23 15:55:14 Another case: 2002 - Appalachian school of law. Shooter was stopped by three students; two were armed and the third was not. —OliviaY
2008-11-23 15:57:39 I think part of the point is that once someone draws a weapon on an attacker, quite often no shots are needed. While these stories aren't about concealed carry on campus, I often read articles about home invasions/robberies halted when someone pulls a weapon on the criminal. One in particular was amusing as it was an 70-80 year old woman who stopped a convenience store robbery when she pulled her pistol. —OliviaY
2008-11-23 16:10:55 One last example: 1998 Andrew Wurst brought a gun to a school dance, which was held at a nearby restaurant, he killed one person and injured three before the owner of Nick's Place aimed a shotgun and held him until the police arrived. —OliviaY
2008-11-23 17:28:29 Compare that to the many many thousands of people who have been shot with guns (illegal or not, illegally carried or not) over the years. I'm sure that given enough people with guns, and enough shootings, you would expect that every once in a while, one would happen to get successfully stopped. In fact, given enough samples, it would be VERY surprising if that didn't happen. But given that the rate at while shootings are stopped by non-police with guns (by your set of examples, about one every few years) compared with the rate at which shootings occur, we're talking virtually no benefit, but a greatly increased risk from more people walking around with guns. Also, as was established in the previous (extremely lengthy) discussion, your risk of being a victim of *any* crime on the UCD campus is less than 0.25%, and the number of victims of crimes where the use of a gun would be legally justified over the past decade was 0.
If you truly feel unsafe on the campus (although in most cases, you shouldn't), you might want to contact the campus police to discuss your concerns. If you would feel safer with people with guns walking around nearby, why not take the money that it would cost for everyone to go out and buy a gun, training, and a concealed carry permit to implement the strategy that you are advocating and use it to pay for a few more police on the campus. That would put an officer within a minute or two of just about every point on campus at any time of day. Police are: trained to use weapons properly and legally, allowed to do so in appropriate situations, unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations, aware of the law and campus policies, able to coordinate with other police, and probably much better able to make a good judgment about when a weapon should or should not be used. I really don't think that this is necessary, given the very low crime rates in Davis. But if it makes you feel better, why not advocate for that instead of random people who might shoot someone? —IDoNotExist
I don't need to spend enough money for everyone to have a gun, just enough so I can. I would rather have many responsible citizens who are comfortable with guns around than more police but that's personal opinion not related to the subject of this wiki. Please keep in mind this debate is about weapons on campus and shootings on campus. Until the crime rate is 0 it is not unreasonable for citizens to arm themselves with protective tools. Aside: "virtually no benefit" tell that to the victim who protects herself from a rapist or anyone else who's life is saved because they or someone else was armed and stopped a crime.
"Police are unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations" Sure. We totally haven't heard staggering numbers of situations where police abused their tasers in the last few years. Example: the New Yorker who was clinically insane and naked on a balcony whom the police attempted to apprehend using a taser. As a result he fell to his death. What about the articles I'm constantly reading about police who storm the wrong apartment after misreading a warrant and shoot innocent people? The police are just as fallible as ordinary citizens.
"Compare that to the many, many thousands of people who have been shot with guns" I'm not saying that letting individuals carry concealed weapons will stop crime, just that it gives those specific potential victims a chance to defend themselves if the day ever comes that they need to. In two of the cases of school shootings I cited, the attacker did not want to die and halted his actions the second a gun was pulled on him—no shots were fired. It is debatable that if campuses allow concealed carry, attacks from people who are not suicidal might decrease. Gun bans do not work. Chicago has had a ban for years and yet is still the new murder capital of the US. —OliviaY
* >>Police are: trained to use weapons properly and legally, allowed to do so in appropriate situations, unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations, aware of the law and campus policies, able to coordinate with other police, and probably much better able to make a good judgment about when a weapon should or should not be used. I really don't think that this is necessary, given the very low crime rates in Davis. But if it makes you feel better, why not advocate for that instead of random people who might shoot someone?<<
Are you willing to take away the right to self-defense based on a "might"? What in your first sentence distinguishes CHL holders from police? CHL holders are: trained to use weapons properly and legally by the state-mandated CHL class, unlikely to use their weapons in inappropriate situations (as shown by various studies listed on SCCC's web site), aware of the law (thanks again to the state-manded CHL class - and if CC on campus is allowed, campus policies will not be an issue), able to coordinate with police officers (they can talk to them, unlike violent criminals who will only speak with bullets), and can you prove that the police are better able to judge? I would give the benefit of the doubt to the CHL holder and say that CHL holders and law enforcement officers have equally good judgment about when to employ their weapons.
Furthermore, going back to 1998, I'm going to list all the incidents in which a concealed weapon might have made a difference: Jose Reyes, August 1998; Tapioca Express stabbing, April 2004; Dennis Thrower, November 2004; John Finley Scott, June 2006. Four incidents. Not zero. Leaving aside inclination and eligibility to acquire a concealed weapons permit, having one and a concealed weapon might have made a difference. Shots may not even have had to be fired in the case of the Tapioca Express stabbing - after all, a criminal with a knife will most likely stop dead in his tracks when faced with a gun-armed individual.
Finally, how would $150-300 for a class and $25 for a (California) license pay for enough police to put officers within a minute or two of every point on campus for more than two days? —BrendanChan
2008-11-23 19:45:15 Ok. Let's say that my suggestion that police are not particularly likely to misuse or abuse their weapons is incorrect as you have suggested, and that police are indeed just like everyone else in that respect. Then your assertion that people would be safer if ordinary people are allowed to carry concealed weapons must be false, since ordinary people, like police, will misuse or abuse their weapons. (In fact, I'd argue that they would be more likely to, but for the sake of argument, we're assuming no difference, as you have asserted.) Therefore, having ordinary people carry weapons is (by your own argument) quite dangerous, since they are likely to abuse or misuse them!
Gun bans may not work if guns are readily available despite the ban. The problem here is that guns are readily available. Wouldn't you feel safer if people couldn't shoot other people? I know I would!
If you've read the entire discussion, you also know that easy access to guns resulted in the rather brutal death of a friend of mine, and her boyfriend. I find it unconscionable and frightening that someone would want to increase the number of these weapons on campus. Maybe it would make you feel better that you have a gun, but it wouldn't make me feel better that you (or anyone else - I don't know you specifically) have a gun.
I also know quite a few people who have been raped. In every case (of those people I know), it was date rape, by people they were involved with, or it was molestation by family members. In none of these cases would someone have been likely to have been protected by a gun. As I've mentioned previously, between 2004 and 2006 (the latest year for which statistics were available when I posted about it previously), there were 22-38 reported cases of forcible sex on campus for those three years. That means that your odds of being a victim of this crime was between 0.12% and 0.044%. So your chances of being a rape victim were close to 0. But had each of these people used a gun and shot their attackers, we would have had up to 38 deaths by gunshot in those three years (as opposed to 0.) I'm certainly not defending the attackers. But the idea of killing all of these people is rather frightening. —IDoNotExist
"Gun bans may not work if guns are readily available despite the ban. The problem here is that guns are readily available. Wouldn't you feel safer if people couldn't shoot other people? I know I would!" Doesn't this sentence not make sense? I would feel safer if a gun ban were to be truly effective, but I think the point is that an effective gun ban is impossible...—Joepomidor
>>In fact, I'd argue that they would be more likely to, but for the sake of argument, we're assuming no difference, as you have asserted.<< Actually, I'm asserting that CHL holders (who are not ordinary citizens) are far LESS likely to abuse or misuse them than the general population. There are several studies, independent and government-conducted, which support this point on SCCC's web site.
>>If you've read the entire discussion, you also know that easy access to guns resulted in the rather brutal death of a friend of mine, and her boyfriend. I find it unconscionable and frightening that someone would want to increase the number of these weapons on campus.<< I'm sorry to hear about your friends, and I apologize for not clarifying this point earlier - SCCC, and I, do NOT want to see more weapons on campus. What we are aiming for is having the state and UC Davis recognize the ability of CHL holders, who are already lawfully licensed to carry OFF campus, and extend that ability to lawfully carry ON campus as well. There should not be an imaginary line between (campus) and (not-campus) that suddenly takes away one's ability to defend oneself, especially when it is perfectly legal on one side of the line and illegal on the other side.
Finally, what Joe is saying has been my position all along. If all the guns in the world, plus the entire collective knowledge of how to manufacture them, disappeared, then by all means this whole discussion would be moot, and I would give up my membership in SCCC because I wouldn't see the need for a firearm of my own. Since they do exist, however, I feel it's more productive to live in the real world. The answer to bullets flying is almost always more bullets flying, and that's why police officers almost universally bring guns with them when responding to a call of "shots fired". —BrendanChan
"The answer to bullets flying is almost always more bullets flying." I've been trying to stay out of this, but... Wow. —CovertProfessor
Alright, let's suppose that you're alone, no law enforcement in sight, and you're faced by a man with a gun. Would you rather have a piece of paper or a gun of your own? —BrendanChan
Neither. I'd rather use one of the other means of self-defense that don't further endanger me or innocent bystanders. And I'd rather that my students not get caught in a cross-fire. I'd also rather not get shot by an angry student. —CovertProfessor
Acknowledged, but name one. Carrying a knife is on the same principle, except far less capable. Carrying Mace is an option, but any firearm has reach on it, therefore a gun-armed attacker will have the advantage. The crossfire issue has been addressed above. —BrendanChan
2008-11-24 00:30:16 There are many countries where it is not legal for a private citizen to own a gun. Japan is one such country. Shockingly, it has virtually no gun violence.
I don't see how an arms race could possibly make people safer. —IDoNotExist
It actually is legal for private citizens to own shotguns or rifles in Japan, as long as they have a license. The reason that the Japanese have such a low level of gun violence is cultural, rather than legal. There's a quote on Wikipedia: "regulations are treated more as road maps than as rules subject to active enforcement. Japan is still a very safe country when it comes to guns, a reality that has less to do with laws than with prevailing attitudes". Besides, Japan was disarmed by an invading nation (us), and so it is easier to implement a gun ban or bans on certain guns. Effectiveness of a ban aside, there's just no way such a thing would work in the U.S. —JoePomidor
Furthermore, consider the case of Switzerland, where very many private citizens own guns. Shockingly, it also has virtually no gun violence. —BrendanChan
2008-11-24 10:07:47 Good. Let's get rid of the guns *off* campus too!
I think that the whole basis of the argument for guns on campus is based on an irrational fear of being attacked. The statistics for Davis, which I've cited previously, clearly show that your odds of being a victim of a physical attack in Davis are close to 0. The rate of manslaughter or murder in Davis is approximately 0. If you truly believe that you are unsafe here, are likely to be attacked, and are in so much danger that you would need a gun to defend yourself, then the rational thing to do would be to go to some place safe where you are unlikely to be attacked! You've cited several places internationally, but I'm sure that there is *somewhere* in the country with a crime rate even lower than that of Davis that you could move to instead. (Not many places, but they do exist.) If you truly believe that the campus is unsafe, why do you keep placing yourself in danger?! If you don't believe that the campus is unsafe, then carrying a gun is not a rational act, and in fact is something that other people should oppose since it puts *them* in danger.
We've established previously that the fact that someone has a license and training does not mean that they won't use a weapon for something other than self defense. For example, they might use it out of anger, or they might have psychological problems that result in them shooting random people. So the argument that people who have concealed weapons are all going to use their weapons at exactly the right time (ie. when attacked), and never at any other time is not rational.
There are over 300 million people in the country. You have stated that in the past decade, there have been exactly *four* incidents in which a concealed carry weapon *might* have helped. That means that your odds of being helped in the past decade by such a weapon was 300 million / 4 = 1 in 75 million. On a yearly basis, your odds of having been helped by such a weapon are 1/750 million. For comparison, the odds of winning Mega Millions, an 11 state lottery with jackpots that are likely to exceed $100 million, are 1 in 176 million. In other words, on a yearly basis, it is more likely that you will become unimaginably rich by playing the lottery than it is that you will benefit from a concealed carry weapon. According to the National Weather Service, your odds of being struck by lightning during your lifetime are 1 in 700,000. Your odds of being struck in in 80 year lifetime are 1 in 5000. In the same *lifetime*, by your own statistics, your odds of being helped by the weapons you are advocating would be 1 in 75,000,000 / 8 = 1 in 9,375,000. In other words, your chances of benefiting from carrying your weapon, by your own statistics, are 1,875 times worse than your chances of being hit by lightning in your lifetime. Given these statistics, you would be much better off saving your money, investing it in the market (securities are cheap now!), or even buying a few hundred lottery tickets!
But, you might say, I keep hearing about crime every day in the news! There are shootings! But if you think about it, you are hearing about events happening *somewhere* in the country, with a population of > 300 million. Your chances of actually being involved in such a crime are close to 0.
Clearly, the statistics show that carrying a gun on campus is not rational, since it is extraordinarily unlikely that you would ever need it. But it does increase the chances of someone being injured or killed either by accident, or because someone who is carrying one of these weapons decides to use it out of anger, because they have a mental issue, etc. So you are asking us to believe that the campus community would benefit from being placed in significantly *greater* danger in exchange for you receiving protection against an event that is almost certain never to happen. Supporting what you are advocating seems like a really bad idea to me. —IDoNotExist
You are completely missing the point that close to 0 is still not 0. It doesn't matter how small the possibility, if only 1 person a year manages to protect themselves because they can have a weapon that current laws would restrict them from having, I would deem that worth it. It's also highly unlikely that I will ever have to deal with a tornado but I still know how to protect myself should I be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that irrational or just good preparedness? Your argument is basically: well it's not likely to happen so why let people protect themselves? You are also offering up totally unrelated statistics as we are discussing CAMPUS violence, specifically gun violence. The burden of proof is on opponents of concealed carry to prove that it is more dangerous than the current system. I have yet to hear any stats about misuse/accidental use of firearms on campus other than by those whose crimes the entire point of arming yourself is to stop. Utah is the only state of which I know that allows for concealed carry on campus and apparently has had no issue with people "getting angry" and starting a saloon style shoot out. Individuals who are completely healthy very rarely just "snap" and the ones who do will harm their victim regardless of whether or not they have a gun. If you want to go down that road the only final solution would be to cut off our hands as they are the easiest weapon to access. Please feel free to provide relevant information or leave the debate. I think your argument has rapidly become about whether or not guns should even be legal/exist which is not what this wiki entry is about.—OliviaY
If you can find a way of eliminating guns, then, as I have said, I am all for it. We've also established previously that the fact that someone has a license and training means that they will be far less likely to use a weapon for something other than self defense. CHL holders know that the law will hold them to a higher standard of conduct than the average citizen, precisely BECAUSE they are CHL holders.
>>Clearly, the statistics show that carrying a gun on campus is not rational, since it is extraordinarily unlikely that you would ever need it. But it does increase the chances of someone being injured or killed either by accident, or because someone who is carrying one of these weapons decides to use it out of anger, because they have a mental issue, etc.<<
Explain precisely how it does this. Modern pistols carry one or more safeties, which means unless they are all deactivated and the trigger is pulled, they won't fire. Concealed carry means concealed carry, which means that a CHL holder is not going to be dumb enough to play around with his weapon in plain sight, which means nothing will receive a bullet. Furthermore, in the State of California, applying for a concealed handgun license requires a psychological evaluation.
Finally, consider that since fall 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all nine public colleges in Utah, since 2003 at Colorado State University-Fort Collins, and since 1995 at Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia. Result: a big fat zero. Zero gun crime by CHL holders, zero suicides, zero accidents, zero gun thefts. For a combined total of 80+ semesters. So what makes people in California so different from people in Utah, Colorado, or Virginia? —BrendanChan
And they didn't stop the Columbine shootings in Colorado or the VA Tech shootings in VA, now did they? Those are perfect test cases to see if your argument for concealed carry weapons is correct. Clearly, they did not. —IDoNotExist
I never said concealed carry would stop EVERY shooting, just that it has the potential to. Concealed is also currently illegal in VA and Colorado so law abiding citizens were not armed. It may be that someone who was witness to either shooting has a weapon or they may not. —OliviaY
There's no need to be condescending. Just because we have different opinions is no reason to talk to us like we're 3 years old. —BrendanChan
2008-11-24 10:48:43 Olivia: Please read the entire discussion. I've cited numerous statistics for the city of Davis and for the Davis campus previously, as well as national statistics. In fact, those have been the basis of the core of my argument! I've shown that my argument is correct using actual data. I've cited the sources of that data (including the NRA!), and provided convenient links to those sources. I've even demonstrated mathematically that the counterarguments do not make sense. Continuing to push for something based on an assumption that has clearly been shown to be false is not rational, and is really a religious argument (not in the deity sense, but in the adherence to an "absolute truth" sense). The Iraq War is a good example of what happens when someone makes decisions based on what they want to be true, rather than what the data actually shows.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you, as you are advocating for changes to existing policies (laws?).
Yup. The chances are not 0. However, the chances of you being killed or injured in Davis in lots of other ways are much greater. Why not advocate for those instead? You might save far more lives. —IDoNotExist
You have yet to demonstrate the danger of concealed carry. Your math about the counterarguments dismiss the individual who would be saved by having a weapon and, in the case of the lotto and lightning, are totally irrelevant. My specific data has been about CAMPUS gun violence that can and has been halted by armed citizens. You have not clearly shown it is false, and have yet to actually provide any data that proves concealed carry is a larger danger than our current system. Again, this wiki is about concealed carry as a solution for on campus violence. IThere are other ways in which I'm in danger in Davis (for example biker accidents) and there are many changes I'd support to stop those, but that's not what this WIKI entry is about.—OliviaY
2008-11-24 11:04:50 But according to the statistics on UCD campus crime, the campus violence in which your solution could be in any way considered to be appropriate or legal virtually never occurs! So you are presenting a solution to a problem that either doesn't exist, or that happens so infrequently that it might as well not exist. (In the years for which data was available, there were 0 such incidents!) I propose an alternative solution: Don't do anything. The rate of violent incidents in which guns could have been used will remain the same: 0. People will remain safe, since they already were. —IDoNotExist
Statistics show that from 1776 to 2008 the rate of black presidents elected was 0! Just because something has not happened yet does not mean it's impossible.—OliviaY
Could you provide a link to these statistics? I'm curious what they say. If it's the link above (way, way above) about the most violent campuses in 2005, you will note that the only info in that article is that UCD is not in the top 8 most violent campuses in the U.S. That's not exactly a solid example of campus safety. —JoePomidor
2008-11-24 11:22:54 Ugh. I'm arguing math and evidence against a belief in an absolute truth here. Clearly, nothing that I can possibly say will ever change your mind (Olivia and Brandon). My argument is clearly laid out for anyone else who wants to read through all of this. I'm moving on... —IDoNotExist
You are arguing that because it hasn't happened yet at UCD, and happens relatively infrequently on a daily basis nation wide, we shouldn't support Concealed Carry. I'd hardly call that hard math and evidence. If you could provide me with any information about the number of accidents that happen with concealed carry, especially if you have numbers that dwarf the potential saved lives from having weapons, I would most definitely see and probably agree with you that it is unnecessary. Instead you are trying to convince me that I should accept what you consider "safe enough" because your fear is that a significant number of your peers will suddenly develop homicidal tendencies as a direct result of owning a gun which sure sounds like an absolute truth to me.—OliviaY
You seem as entrenched in your views as they are in theirs. If you want to leave the argument, at least have the decency to do it without trying to sound sanctimonious. —JoePomidor
2008-11-24 11:33:46 I think part of the problem inherent in any attempt to talk reasonably about guns is that people seem to believe that guns have some innate quality that makes them bad. I have noticed this a lot in California, and it always puzzles me. People seem to think that a gun will cause a person to do things they wouldn't normally do, or that it is capable of going off on it's own, and usually will do so when there's a convenient crowd of innocent bystanders. Guns are just tools, the same as hammers or cars, and they are only dangerous when used negligently or abusively. Negligence and abuse is something that occurs when someone is improperly educated about guns, or when they already intend to do some mischief. If I drive my car recklessly, then it is very possible that I could hurt someone. Does that mean we should ban cars? Of course not, it only means that we should have rules regarding car use, and require that anyone who wishes to drive a car get a license. Did you know that more than half of all gun deaths in the United States are from suicide? (You can research all the ways people die and the statistics involved here.) People sometimes use ropes to kill themselves, should we ban those as well? —JoePomidor
2008-11-24 12:40:29 Joe: there's an important difference. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is for transportation. The primary purpose of a rope is (presumably) to tie things together. I don't buy the argument that because a gun is an inanimate object without the ability to decide to kill for itself that it is any less dangerous. You could make the same argument about nuclear weapons. A nuke is just an object. It doesn't do anything unless someone deliberately arms it and uses it to blow up a city. But it is *designed* to blow up a city. Therefore, it's not a good idea to let people carry them around, because someone might *use* one. Yes, you can injure or kill someone with nearly any object. You can kill someone with a small amount of water if you cause them to inhale it. But no one goes around talking about how you can use a water bottle to drown someone. People don't talk about drive by brickings, even though you can kill someone with a brick. A plastic bag can be used to kill someone by suffocation, but they aren't *designed* or *intended* to be used for that. Guns aren't terribly useful for anything other than putting holes in things, whether those things are paper targets, defenseless moose, or people. No one here is advocating for the construction of a shooting range on campus, so I think it's a pretty safe bet that we are talking about the more lethal uses of a gun.
I think this is part of the problem, or misunderstanding of guns. I own several, use them on a regular basis, and have never killed a person or animal with them. To claim that the primary purpose is "to kill" is flat wrong. —DavidGrundler
If you drive recklessly, you can lose your license. But the analogy is poor, because cars aren't meant to kill. Guns have that as their primary purpose. (In fact, in Europe, cars are now required to be designed to reduce injuries to pedestrians, not just to their own occupants, because there is a desire to make them LESS dangerous.)
Olivia: Actually, I did know someone who suddenly developed homicidal tendencies, resulting in the death by gunshot of two people. The person had actually been very nice, and there was no reason to believe that anything like that might happen. I'm sure that they could have even passed your concealed carry test with no problem. All it took was a failure to take their medication at the wrong time. The other person who was killed, by the way, was in the military and most likely had legal possession of a gun as well as real training in how to use it.
Joe: I'm sorry that you don't like how I'm leaving the discussion. But it's gone on for months, and I have other things to do with my time. I feel that I've made my point, and anyone who reads this discussion will be able to tell what that is, and why I've made that argument. They can agree with it or not as they wish. I also feel like nothing that I say here is going to change the minds of Brendan and Olivia, since they readily dismiss all evidence that opposes their view. I am happy to adopt views other than the one that I currently have, but I haven't seem any evidence presented that supports their opinion, and there's plenty of evidence that runs counter to it. This could go on for a *very* long time (parallel discussions about gun control certainly have on a national level), but at some point I think we have to acknowledge that everyone has presented their best argument, and it's time to move on and discuss something else (at least it is for me.) I'm sorry that my method of doing so sounds sanctimonious to you, but I really do feel like this has become something more akin to trying to debate religion rather than looking at real world evidence, deciding whether a problem actually exists, deciding whether or not it makes any real sense to address that problem if it does, and finding the most effective solution if the problem needs to be addressed. I don't think that such discussions are productive for me, because they very rarely result in anyone changing their view, regardless of what arguments are made. So I'd rather move on and deal with something more productive. —IDoNotExist
Thank you for sharing your views in a civil manner. —BrendanChan
I'm sorry you have been so close to tragedy, but I said "develop homicidal tendencies as a direct result of owning a gun." My point was that a person who is mentally unstable or engages in criminal activity and has decided to kill will do so with whatever weapon they have available; owning a gun is not what turns someone into a killer. If you ever come across information that is directly related to the issue, instead of making unjustified parallels, feel free to let me know. That is the sort of information that would be useful/change my mind. For now your math is sound but unrelated and what we differ on is opinion; you think low statistics mean arms are unnecessary, whereas I do not. Accusing me of some sort of faith based belief when what we have is a difference of opinion is absurd. I've provided examples. You're operating entirely on theory. Statistics wholly divorced from reality and not applicable to the issue at hand must require faith to fail to discuss the instances where this has actually happened.—OliviaY
You're right in that if someone is going to become a killer, maybe nothing can be done. But surely you're not arguing that the fact that they have a gun is irrelevant - as others pointed out, a gun is a tool. Designed to cause damage. A gun also allows people to do so at a much larger range. How many mass knifings have their been? On a college campus, per your concerns. To whomever said hands are a weapon too, mass judo chops to windpipes? A gun clearly facilitates their decision, and the action, of engage in such violence. I don't think anyone is saying "crazy people won't be crazy" - but you can't say that theirs no difference between a crazy guy with a knife and one with a gun. There absolutely is. Unless maybe the guy in the belltower has ninja stars, guns are the primary fear.
Your own unlinked anecdotal examples have virtually all been one gunman confronted by another. In fact, there have been numerous psychological studies (I can find you published, peer-reviewed links later) that conclude that using a gun is actually easier and typically the choice of said activities, due not simply to its ease of use but typically the ability to distance yourself from it's actions (simply pulling a trigger as opposed to physically stabbing or what have you someone else, etc). On a sidenote, the discussion about cops is stupid. Sure, CHL carriers have been trained in appropriate use. So have cops. And it's their job, not simply a side thing. If you're arguing that cops can mess up too and are untrustworthy that doesn't really leave that much hope for actions of CHL. And to say 'criminals are afraid of people with guns more than cops' (again, a random unproven opinion? Links pelase.) actually topically makes sense. A cop is properly trained to deal with a variety of situations. I'd be much less afraid of surrendering to a cop and risking jail too, then I would of some adrenaline pumped idiot with a gun. -ES
If you want links I'll put them up, but I am at least trying to study while debating this issue and having provided dates and names figured you could wiki those 5 incidents at your leisure. At least my, as you put it, anecdotal examples are relevant to the discussion. I agree that a crazy guy with a gun is dangerous and can shoot me from yards away; yes he would have to get closer with a knife but a knife has dangers a gun does not. A knife is less obvious in a crowd, a knife is easier to obtain, a knife is easier to dispose of and harder to trace. I am simply pointing out that whether or not this person has a gun, he's going to find a way to kill someone AND owning a gun will not make an otherwise normally person homicidal nor will not owning a gun prevent someone from becoming a criminal. If you want knifing incidents there are many...in fact I was just watching the news an hour ago and heard about some lunatic who tried to storm a Scientology building with a sword of all things. Hands definitely ARE weapons, true it takes more effort to choke the life out of someone/drown them/beat them to a bloody pulp but if that's the only option the aforementioned crazy person has, he'll take it and find a victim. You are right that my aside from cops was out of beat with this discussion, it's my personal lack of trust in law enforcement on a whole, as well as a specific personality I've found that field attracts, and is an entirely different issue. —OliviaY
Yes CHL holders are not policemen, because they don't have to A) arrest people; B) drive tactically; C) act like one-man SWAT teams. From SCCC literature, "A
comparison of statistics** in the mid-nineties, when Florida was still one of the few shall-issue states, found that Florida concealed handgun license holders were three times less likely to be arrested than were New York City police officers." (A comparison of statistics on arrests of police officers, published by the Washington Post on 08/28/94, to Florida
Department of Law Enforcement statistics submitted to the Governor on 03/15/95.)
>>I'd be much less afraid of surrendering to a cop and risking jail too, then I would of some adrenaline pumped idiot with a gun.<< You're forgetting that none of the CHL holders who used their firearms to defend themselves or others were idiots. I can remember at least half a dozen, off the shelf, and a whole lot more if I do serious research. —BrendanChan
Word, ES. I would also imagine that conceal carry would have a chilling effect on college campuses. So since people want to carry in case they need to defend themselves, then more people will think that they, too, need to carry to defend themselves in the event something should happen. Since no one knows who's armed, now we're just fueling paranoia. Is the guy sitting right there who's giving me the Stink Eye armed? Is he a sociopath or just some socially awkward kid? The few people who carry feel safe and the rest of us are now just uncomfortable going to school. If this is about campus violence, have UCDPD beef up security and send out a memorandum saying that any student who is found bringing their firearm to campus will be automatically expelled. And students will think twice about bringing their gun to school. When I worked, I found most students facing criminal charges (violent crimes) were more afraid of SJA than they were of the criminal justice system. Even the crazies. It was very interesting.—CurlyGirl26.
Students who are planning to go on a murder spree will be prevented from bringing a weapon to campus with the threat of expulsion from college but not a life sentence in a federal state prison (which would of course mean that they are prevented from continuing education anyway)? —OliviaY
Your garden variety weirdo is more afraid of SJA than criminal penalties. They aren't thinking that clearly (weighing the risk of getting that life sentence in prison) or that far ahead. We would be a lot safer if the police, school psychiatrists, professors, et al, worked together in a comprehensive and cohesive manner to ensure campus safety. Which, they already do. Weren't there all kinds of psychiatric red flags surrounding Mr. Cho of VA Tech? Didn't members of the faculty aware he was had Serious Issues well before the day of the shooting? You'll never be 100% safe, even if you are toting a gun. All you can do is take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm. Reasonable, to me, would be to allow the grown ups to do their jobs. That has to be more effective than allowing a bunch of J.O.s to bring their firearms to school just in case S*** happens.—CurlyGirl26
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07EFDF133FF93AA25756C0A9629C8B63 and http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/10/20/2008-10-20_6_killed_in_south_korean_arson_stabbing_.html —OliviaY
random linking is useless and irrelevant, though Joe's is interesting in that Japan was brought up above by someone else being culturally different (more knife related, less gun, it seems). Of course people are killed in a variety of ways. You can always find someone who was killed with a garage door opener, an avacado slicer, or some other weird varient, much less with more traditional beatings, knifings, and shootings. However, the direct request above was: How many mass knifings have their been? On a college campus, per your concerns. An explicit comparison against college *shootings*. Of course you can find links on almost anything, but unless you're doing some sort of statistical analysis, it's completely useless as a debate point to simply show something has happened somewhere, or to try to argue that it might without rational or quantitative reasoning. And it completely sidesteps my entire post. Once again, if someone is going to do something, it very well might be out of peoples hands to stop it, but it is simply ridiculous to try to say that the gun is irrelevant on their ability to do so or cause damage. (actually, as some psychological publiciations have shown which I'll link shortly, it actually has affected the decision to do so in many cases due to the impersonality of using a gun compared to other weapons. But I'd rather not waste my time getting into that whole argument, which is why I'm simply making it a sidepoint). -ES
Now I am fighting the urge to search for avocado peeler killings.... Owning a gun is not irrelevant. I have been, repeatedly, addressing the idea that someone will snap and go on a murder spree if they have a gun. If a person snaps they will go a spree with or without a gun as Joe's example in Tokyo depicts. If there were a way to completely rid the world of guns then obviously, as Brandon has stated many times, this would be a moot case. The problem is that even when it's illegal to purchase them, criminals find a way to. If guns were completely removed from the equation we probably would see an increase in mass knifing on a college campus. I have not yet heard of such an incident which, as you have pointed out, is most definitely in large part because of the power/relative ease that comes from wielding a gun. That is not an issue I would debate. A gun is definitely attractive to anyone other than Jason/Michael Meyers since it can do more damage and with more distance. In 2/5 cases I referenced however, the criminal in question was not suicidal, so when confronted by another civilian with a weapon they ceased their actions with no additional gunfire was needed. Will this work in every case? No. Sadly incidents like that at VTech are done by very mentally disturbed individuals. I agree with ["Users"/CurlyGirl26"] that there should be more school psychiatrists and professors can do, but that won't fix the whole problem. Neither would letting college students bring arms to campus, so why not do BOTH and make an even bigger impact? Try to prevent school shootings from happening, prepare for it in case something slips through the cracks. Redundancy in the system as a way of increasing the reliability of the system.—Oliviay
As a response to the post above, and placed here as a new thread, if the point is to stop said potential shooting, why a lethal handgun? Would a taser not be sufficient? I suspect pulling a gun out would only add problems. Unless ten people pull a gun out, which is what I think some of you are envisioning (yay heros!)... But in said extremely disturbed cases such as the VT guy, I'd expect it to prompt a shootout. A taser would definitely be able to take the person down, more than long enough to be restrained. Excluding certain cases where someone brings a rifle or is rooftoping it, most shootings seem to be (not doing proper fact checking here) at close to very close ranges, well within the 30/35 foot range of a taser. Conversely, a tranquilizer gun is also highly accurate, well ranged, are available as pistols, and are quite a bit less lethal to both target and potential bystanders. Is there a justification for lethality, if the point is to avoid having to use the weapon and use it as a tool to stop a situation or protect oneself and their peers? I would say that using a taser or a tranquilizer gun would do much more to stop a person and contain your nightmare scenario than a non-lethal shot to the abdomen, legs/arms, etc. Unless the plan is to shoot to kill or to fire more than once? -ES
There are two types of tasers: close range and the kind that "shoot." Obviously the close range taser would be impossible to use. The kind that shoot might be able to disable the shooter long enough for someone to grab the weapon but again there is the issue of range. I know this will make me sound like an unfeeling B$%$* but I do not personally have a problem with the idea of using lethal force to stop someone who would harm me/others I care about. When pulling a gun in self-defense the rule is that even though you might not want to kill someone, you had better be prepared to do. In many cases the individuals who conduct school shootings are suffering from a mental defect (like in the 1966 Texas case - brain tumor) so I would prefer to see those individuals stopped safely and receive medical care so long as it is not at the expense of any other lives. Unfortunately those people also tend to be the ones who favor rifles/rooftops/automatic weapons that fire at ranges too far for a taser to be reliable/effective. I do not know anything about tranquilizer guns, how fast do they work? Is the effect is instantaneous and/or analogous to a shot to the heart/head? I think, feel free to correct me, that the immediate immobilizing effect of a gunshot isn't just piercing vital organs but the force of the bullet. If the tranq isn't immediately effective and doesn't have that force wouldn't it still be possible for the shooter to get off another round?OliviaY
Tasers only give you one shot. You had better make it count. —wl
2008-11-24 21:21:03 Oh wow. I'm not even going to get into these comments. But may I say that I am saddened and disappointed by the existence of a Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. —gurglemeow