News Mass shooting in N Illinois University

[drankin]

I would be VERY surpsied if even ONE person had a carry on weapon here at campus, and I would make it illegal for him to have a weapon on campus. This isn't a shooting range. There simply is no need to have a gun on a college campus.

If it's legal where you are at, you can bet there a few (hence the word "concealed"). It's not like we go around advertising that we are armed. How exactly would you make it illegal for them?

 

[Cyrus]

Gun on campus = expulsion. No ifs ands or buts.

 

[||spoon||]

I agree with Cyrus. You can't fight fire with fire, if you try the whole place will burn to the ground.

If students are allowed to buy, own and conceal a weapon whose only purpose is to kill/seriously harm another person then if nothing else... Dont allow them to be brought to schools.

 

[Huckleberry]

Except we didn't have a rash of incidents like this back when gun laws were more lax. It doesn't really support that it's the gun laws or availability that are the issue.

But, even when gun laws were more lax (or nonexistent), you didn't have college students walking around carrying sidearms either, so the other argument to allow people to have more concealed carry permits for self defense doesn't work either. And, since this shooter supposedly committed suicide at the end, that too suggests it would be no deterrent or threat that someone else might shoot him first.

To me, this really is more of a cultural mentality shift that we have more of these crazies showing up on campuses at all. Perhaps we've become too tolerant of disruptive and antisocial behavior in schools that we don't notice the budding psychopath?

I generally agree with this. I would say that this type of psycopath is a coward and will try to find targets that are defenseless. If they knew there was a gun in a class and not another they would go to the class with no gun. I don't think it is a good idea to turn schools into gun shows, but I think armed security might not be such a bad idea.

I agree that the major issue is the mentality shift in our culture. The shooters should be held responsible for their heinous actions, but we should also look at how we allow the abusive conditions that create these psycopaths. If a persons dignity is attacked in public and private and nothing is done to protect them, then I understand why it would be difficult for these people to act in a dignified manner. I am concerned about the level of consideration for others in US society.

 

[drankin]

I agree with Cyrus. You can't fight fire with fire, if you try the whole place will burn to the ground.

If students are allowed to buy, own and conceal a weapon whose only purpose is to kill/seriously harm another person then if nothing else... Dont allow them to be brought to schools.

Well, they are bought for personal protection and everyday folks shouldn't be denied that right to defend themselves, particularly when they are somewhere they are spending so much time. And fortunately, most states recognize that.

 

[||spoon||]

Well, they are bought for personal protection and everyday folks shouldn't be denied that right to defend themselves, particularly when they are somewhere they are spending so much time. And fortunately, most states recognize that.

But if proper reasonable measures were enforced so that no one can take weapons to school what would be the point. Schools should not be a place where someone feels the need to protect themselves in the first place.

What you suggest is not a solution to the problem... It just gives the POSSIBILITY that less people will die (which I doubt) when the problem actually arises. Why not come up with something so that there isn't a problem in the first place...

 

[Cyrus]

Well, they are bought for personal protection and everyday folks shouldn't be denied that right to defend themselves, particularly when they are somewhere they are spending so much time. And fortunately, most states recognize that.

Most universities have campus police (we do). There is no need for 'personal protection' with a gun. (We still have a lot of crimes on campus, mostly by outside people who come here to rob).

I really am against people walking around the streets with guns who are not police.

Q: You see a little old lady being mugged on the street. What do you do with your gun? Are you going to step in and play the role of police officer?

 

[drankin]

Most universities have campus police (we do). There is no need for 'personal protection' with a gun. (We still have a lot of crimes on campus, mostly by outside people who come here to rob).

I really am against people walking around the streets with guns who are not police.

Q: You see a little old lady being mugged on the street. What do you do with your gun? Are you going to step in and play the role of police officer?

I get that from you. Luckily, our founding fathers didn't feel the same.

 

[Cyrus]

No, our founding fathers intended us to have guns to fight against government oppression; hence, why I said one should have as many guns they want in their home. They did not say you could walk around with guns playing police man every time you see a crime; which, quite frankly, I think a lot of people would do if everyone were carrying a gun.

 

[Yonoz]

Personally, if I'm ever in a situation like this, I'll be the first to the rush the bastard. If I die in the process, so be it. The guy right behind me won't, and that'll be the end of it.

You ever been shot at?
I'm not saying you wouldn't do it, but you can't judge people who flee deranged gunmen until you've experienced something similar. It can be stressful to the point of paralysis.

 

[Astronuc]

Ex-student kills 5 on Illinois campus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/niu_shooting

DEKALB, Ill. - The gunman who killed five students and wounded 16 others in a hail of bullets at a Northern Illinois University lecture hall knew the campus well: He was a former student.
. . . .
The shooter had been a graduate student in sociology at Northern Illinois as recently as spring 2007, but was not currently enrolled at the 25,000-student campus, University President John Peters said.
. . . .
Witnesses said the gunman, dressed in black and wearing a stocking cap, emerged from behind a screen on the stage of 200-seat Cole Hall and opened fire just as the class was about to end around 3 p.m., sending panicked students fleeing for the exits.
. . . .

So the gunman was an outsider who found his way on campus in order to shoot people.

It will be some time before we learn the background of the individual.

 

[daveb]

There are a few problems with the position about allowing people to carry concealed firearms.

First, while it's true that some crazed insane gunman would probably kill less people because he would be stopped quicker, there are no statistics to say whether or not it would occur more often or not. Crimes of passion are just that. Someone loses their head and does something horrible. Since there's no way to screen out everyone who would lose it, it's logical to assume that if more of those who had the potential to lose it had weapons, there would be more gun related incidences. Whether or not the total number of people killed would rise or fall is anyone's guess. All the statistical analysis in the world is merely hypothetical.

Second, saying that if more people possessed guns it would deter criminals doesn't fly. Criminals know that jail time is a real possibility. If they aren't afraid of that, why would they be afraid of the possibility of someone with guns? Additionally, criminals, for the most part, probably do not think of the consequences while committing a crime (of course I leave out the conscientious person who is not the habitual criminal). It was many years ago (mid 80's I think) where PBS had a show on crime, where they interviewed cons and ex-cons. There was a mixture of murderers, robbers, and muggers. The majority didn't think about the consequences; they never even thought they'd get caught. Furthermore, when posed the question, they claimed that if they knew or suspected the victim of their crime had a weapon, they (well, the ones not in for murder) would have been more likely to kill their victim, rather than not commit the crime in the first place.

Finally, more armed citizens means more skittish police (is that person carying that weapon a rational, law abiding citizen or a crazed criminal?) I wouldn't want to be a police officer in such a situation.

HOWEVER...

On the opposite side, I also can't see how outlawing all gun ownership would work either. After all, as has been pointed out, criminals don't obey the law, so why would they obey the anti-gun laws? If a system could be put in place where there ere not just FBI criminal background checks, but also psychological analysis done to determine if the person is likely to go off the deep end, then I would be more supportive of concealed firearm permits.

The Supreme Court has regularly held that the Constitution is not absolute. For the good of society, they have ruled that some things are not protected, such as the "right of free speech" by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It seems logical to assume that for the good of society, they would see no problem regulating gun ownership, such as allowing laws that outlaw or restrict certain types of guns, carrying them in certain places, etc. Where the line is drawn is certainly a matter for debate, of course.

 

[seycyrus]

There ARE statistics available for the number of gun crimes committed by those who have CC permits. The number is incredibly small.

That is one of the reasons why the number of states allowing concealed carry is increasing.

If you do not think you are even-tempered enough to carry a weapon, then do not do so.

 

[Oerg]

There are a few problems with the position about allowing people to carry concealed firearms.

HOWEVER...

On the opposite side, I also can't see how outlawing all gun ownership would work either. After all, as has been pointed out, criminals don't obey the law, so why would they obey the anti-gun laws? If a system could be put in place where there ere not just FBI criminal background checks, but also psychological analysis done to determine if the person is likely to go off the deep end, then I would be more supportive of concealed firearm permits.

Outlawing guns for everyone makes it harder to obtain a gun and imposing strict laws will ensure that the black market for guns are somewhat small. It is easier to control guns than drugs because guns arent easily smuggled and they turn up in almost all sorts of scanners ( i think>>< right??)

Besides< there is no black market for guns here where I live whereas there is a black market for drugs

 

[seycyrus]

Outlawing guns for everyone makes it harder to obtain a gun and imposing strict laws will ensure that the black market for guns are somewhat small. It is easier to control guns than drugs because guns arent easily smuggled and they turn up in almost all sorts of scanners ( i think>>< right??)

Besides< there is no black market for guns here where I live whereas there is a black market for drugs

They have polled prisoners in jail, and asked them if tighter gun control laws would make it harder for them to obtain weapons. They were laughed out of the place. Remember, it's illegal everywhere to sell a gun to a convicted felon.

 

[Evo]

Christ, another school shooting? What the hell is the matter with people these days?

It's because they see the media coverage that they will get.

 

[Economist]

Yeah, but just becuase you're responsible as a gun owner, does not mean all 260 million other americans will be. In fact, I think violence would go up due to people with short tempers shooting each other over stupid arguments.

This is so rediculous. To say that 260 million people will be carrying guns is beyond silly. Most people will not want to carry guns. The real question is if the other's have the right to carry a gun if they desire. I say, as long as you're a law abiding citizen then hell yeah.

 

[Economist]

I would be VERY surpsied if even ONE person had a carry on weapon here at campus, and I would make it illegal for him to have a weapon on campus. This isn't a shooting range. There simply is no need to have a gun on a college campus.

That's a great idea, this way you'll definitely keep guns out of the hands of those maniacs who shoot up schools.

 

[Economist]

I don't think it is a good idea to turn schools into gun shows

This is funny that you try to paint a picture of a gun show, when we both know schools would never be like that. Even if allowed, only a very small number of students and teachers would have concealed weapons.

Interestingly enough, I bet nobody has walked into a gun show and started shooting. I wouldn't even be suprised if no one has ever gotten killed at a gun show (if not then it's probably a very small number). So in some sense your comment backfires because gun shows are much safer than schools.

 

[Economist]

Most universities have campus police (we do). There is no need for 'personal protection' with a gun. (We still have a lot of crimes on campus, mostly by outside people who come here to rob).

We do to, and there has been a wave of crime lately. A few people got punched just walking around minding their own business. One women got hit in the face repeatedly with a hammer while walking to her care at like 7:00 in the morning. Another girl was robbed at gun point. These are all within the last few months (and I didn't even mention all the crimes that I know about).

I can only imagine the number of girls who've probably been raped as those generally go unreported.

I really am against people walking around the streets with guns who are not police.

If there was someway to keep guns out of the hands of everybody I would agree with you. However, in reality police walk around with guns and criminals walk around with guns. Therefore, I think it would probably be beneficial to allow law abiding citizens this right as well.

Q: You see a little old lady being mugged on the street. What do you do with your gun? Are you going to step in and play the role of police officer?

I might not have to. Maybe she's packing and can handle the situation herself.

 

[Economist]

Whether or not the total number of people killed would rise or fall is anyone's guess. All the statistical analysis in the world is merely hypothetical.

This is bs. There are highly qualified people analyzing the data right now and publishing their work in academic journals. John Lott is amoung the most famous.

Second, saying that if more people possessed guns it would deter criminals doesn't fly. Criminals know that jail time is a real possibility. If they aren't afraid of that, why would they be afraid of the possibility of someone with guns? Additionally, criminals, for the most part, probably do not think of the consequences while committing a crime (of course I leave out the conscientious person who is not the habitual criminal). It was many years ago (mid 80's I think) where PBS had a show on crime, where they interviewed cons and ex-cons. There was a mixture of murderers, robbers, and muggers. The majority didn't think about the consequences; they never even thought they'd get caught. Furthermore, when posed the question, they claimed that if they knew or suspected the victim of their crime had a weapon, they (well, the ones not in for murder) would have been more likely to kill their victim, rather than not commit the crime in the first place.

John Stossel asks some criminals the same question and they say they actually were afraid of people owning a gun. They said they weren't afraid of the cops because they never get their in time, and the only thing they feared was someone owning a gun.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6113060654050920304&q=john+stossel+gun&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Oerg]

They have polled prisoners in jail, and asked them if tighter gun control laws would make it harder for them to obtain weapons. They were laughed out of the place. Remember, it's illegal everywhere to sell a gun to a convicted felon.

Your poll is invalid, how can you poll prisoners and gather from their answers ithat tighter gun control laws would not make it harder for them to obtain weapons?



By stricting guns to law enforcement agents, you can cripple the black market simply because it is easier to do so when no one is allowed to carry a gun. Look at any nation that restricts guns to enforcement agents and takes a responsible role in the problem of guns and you can see that it works. A perfect example would be my country.

 

[Economist]

I want to make a couple points in regards to the current debate.

First of all, concealed handguns is not only about protecting school shootings. Do you realize how many women get raped each year in the US? Concealed handguns also protects people in situations like this. The argument for concealed handguns is much deeper than school shootings.

Second, I keep hearing people talking about the police and how they should be allowed to have guns but nobody else. To anybody with that mentality please read this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933550147/?tag=pfamazon01-20

As Bastiat convincingly argues, individuals have unalienable rights (he actually refers to them as god given rights) to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, if you have the right to these things then you have the right to protect them (even violently if it must be). If someone is trying to harm your life, whether it's in the street, at your home, or anywere else you have the right to protect yourself by whatever means necessary. The only reason we have government in Bastiat's view, is because we can delegate the protection of these rights to government if we choose. In other words, since I have the right to kill someone if they are trying to harm my family in my home, I therefore can hire police officers to do that duty as well. However, having police does not take away my right to protect myself if I choose to.

In other words, the only reason police should be allowed to carry guns and protect individuals is precisely because those individuals actually have the right to protect themselves. So an argument for having police is not an argument that in anyway justifies taking guns from everybody else.

 

[ShawnD]

I'm sure that was a gun-free zone... how on Earth could this happen? When will we learn?

I said that same thing when my dad told me about this. It's tragic, but we can't pretend nobody saw this coming.

 

[Economist]

Your poll is invalid, how can you poll prisoners and gather from their answers ithat tighter gun control laws would not make it harder for them to obtain weapons?

You don't need a poll, there's already data on how many murders are committed with guns obtained in illegal ways.

By stricting guns to law enforcement agents, you can cripple the black market simply because it is easier to do so when no one is allowed to carry a gun.

Kinda like it did for prostitution and drugs?

 

[Evo]

This is bs. There are highly qualified people analyzing the data right now and publishing their work in academic journals. John Lott is amoung the most famous.

Please post links to these peer reviewed studies.

 

[ShawnD]

Your poll is invalid, how can you poll prisoners and gather from their answers ithat tighter gun control laws would not make it harder for them to obtain weapons?

Canada is the answer to your question. Hand guns are almost 100% illegal in Canada, yet police find handguns in every drug bust. Where did they come from? How did criminals get them? The answer is the US. If guns became illegal in the US, criminals would just get them from Pakistan or Russia or some other country that has guns. If a gun ban failed in both Australia and Canada, it's hard to think it will magically work in the US.

 

[drankin]

There are a few problems with the position about allowing people to carry concealed firearms.

First, while it's true that some crazed insane gunman would probably kill less people because he would be stopped quicker, there are no statistics to say whether or not it would occur more often or not. Crimes of passion are just that. Someone loses their head and does something horrible. Since there's no way to screen out everyone who would lose it, it's logical to assume that if more of those who had the potential to lose it had weapons, there would be more gun related incidences. Whether or not the total number of people killed would rise or fall is anyone's guess. All the statistical analysis in the world is merely hypothetical.

Second, saying that if more people possessed guns it would deter criminals doesn't fly. Criminals know that jail time is a real possibility. If they aren't afraid of that, why would they be afraid of the possibility of someone with guns? Additionally, criminals, for the most part, probably do not think of the consequences while committing a crime (of course I leave out the conscientious person who is not the habitual criminal). It was many years ago (mid 80's I think) where PBS had a show on crime, where they interviewed cons and ex-cons. There was a mixture of murderers, robbers, and muggers. The majority didn't think about the consequences; they never even thought they'd get caught. Furthermore, when posed the question, they claimed that if they knew or suspected the victim of their crime had a weapon, they (well, the ones not in for murder) would have been more likely to kill their victim, rather than not commit the crime in the first place.

Finally, more armed citizens means more skittish police (is that person carying that weapon a rational, law abiding citizen or a crazed criminal?) I wouldn't want to be a police officer in such a situation.

HOWEVER...

On the opposite side, I also can't see how outlawing all gun ownership would work either. After all, as has been pointed out, criminals don't obey the law, so why would they obey the anti-gun laws? If a system could be put in place where there ere not just FBI criminal background checks, but also psychological analysis done to determine if the person is likely to go off the deep end, then I would be more supportive of concealed firearm permits.

The Supreme Court has regularly held that the Constitution is not absolute. For the good of society, they have ruled that some things are not protected, such as the "right of free speech" by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It seems logical to assume that for the good of society, they would see no problem regulating gun ownership, such as allowing laws that outlaw or restrict certain types of guns, carrying them in certain places, etc. Where the line is drawn is certainly a matter for debate, of course.

Allowing people to carry a concealed handgun decreases crime:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

 

[Economist]

Please post links to these peer reviewed studies.

I already did, look back at my previous posts in this thread. I posted 2 of his books, and 2 of the academic peer reviewed studies he wrote.

 

[Gokul43201]

There have been several claims of statistical fact in this thread - some not so easily verified as others. I am aware of the statistics regarding drops in crime rates following implementation of cc laws, but haven't actually seen any statistics for the fraction of gun-related crimes committed by cc permit holders. Could someone please post the stats for this?

 

[Oerg]

I want to make a couple points in regards to the current debate.

First of all, concealed handguns is not only about protecting school shootings. Do you realize how many women get raped each year in the US? Concealed handguns also protects people in situations like this. The argument for concealed handguns is much deeper than school shootings.

Second, I keep hearing people talking about the police and how they should be allowed to have guns but nobody else. To anybody with that mentality please read this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1933550147/?tag=pfamazon01-20

As Bastiat convincingly argues, individuals have unalienable rights (he actually refers to them as god given rights) to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, if you have the right to these things then you have the right to protect them (even violently if it must be). If someone is trying to harm your life, whether it's in the street, at your home, or anywere else you have the right to protect yourself by whatever means necessary. The only reason we have government in Bastiat's view, is because we can delegate the protection of these rights to government if we choose. In other words, since I have the right to kill someone if they are trying to harm my family in my home, I therefore can hire police officers to do that duty as well. However, having police does not take away my right to protect myself if I choose to.

In other words, the only reason police should be allowed to carry guns and protect individuals is precisely because those individuals actually have the right to protect themselves. So an argument for having police is not an argument that in anyway justifies taking guns from everybody else.

Your argument about giving the government the responsibilty to protect you does not take away your right to protect yourself is flawed. That may be what you think, and that maybe your personal opinion, but the population as a whole chooses for themselves based on a democratic political system. Not everyone thinks like you and I say that is the problem with democracy. Sometimes, the population as a whole is not wise enough to decide for themselves what is good for them and the government has to follow whatever the population perceives is good based on conventional wisdom but is actually not so.

In a society with Law and Order, every criminal must be judged and punished in accordance with the law. It is not up to the individual to have the right to kill another just because of whatever crime that may be perceived to be hurtful or whatever you wrote in your post. The law serves as a deterence. By putting guns into the hands of a civilian, you are toppling the very basics of a society based on law and order.

 

[drankin]

There have been several claims of statistical fact in this thread - some not so easily verified as others. I am aware of the statistics regarding drops in crime rates following implementation of cc laws, but haven't actually seen any statistics for the fraction of gun-related crimes committed by cc permit holders. Could someone please post the stats for this?

I've looked for that stat myself and I can't find one. I suspect that it is very low considering everything I had to go thru to get mine. Not a process shady people are apt to enjoy. Standing in line at the police station and/or court house, fingerprinting, FBI check, actually paying for it, etc.

 

[Economist]

Your argument about giving the government the responsibilty to protect you does not take away your right to protect yourself is flawed. That may be what you think, and that maybe your personal opinion, but the population as a whole chooses for themselves based on a democratic political system. Not everyone thinks like you and I say that is the problem with democracy. Sometimes, the population as a whole is not wise enough to decide for themselves what is good for them and the government has to follow whatever the population perceives is good based on conventional wisdom but is actually not so.

Actually, I believe your argument is flawed. If you carry your argument out to it's logical conclusion than we should be voting on things like free-speech and slavery as well.

 

[Oerg]

Canada is the answer to your question. Hand guns are almost 100% illegal in Canada, yet police find handguns in every drug bust. Where did they come from? How did criminals get them? The answer is the US. If guns became illegal in the US, criminals would just get them from Pakistan or Russia or some other country that has guns. If a gun ban failed in both Australia and Canada, it's hard to think it will magically work in the US.

Actually I've thought about this before. That was why I added a phrase "a responsible role". I live in Singapore, and the immediate neighbour is Malaysia to the North. Now, Malaysia also bans guns but there are still a lot of gun related crime in Malaysia. Why is it then that the last firearm related crime in Singapore happened over a decade ago?

I think the problem ( I'm not sure, but it seems logically so) lies in border control checks. If it is possible that an extremely small number of firearms made it through the border (maybe even none at all) between Malaysia and Singapore, then it would seem possible for any other country. Of course, Malaysia and Singapore are only connected by 2 bridges, while the US of A and Canada are connected with a border which is thousands of kilometres long, but I believe that if the government is determined about border checks, then it is possible to reduce the number of illegal guns in the country.

 

[drankin]

Your argument about giving the government the responsibilty to protect you does not take away your right to protect yourself is flawed. That may be what you think, and that maybe your personal opinion, but the population as a whole chooses for themselves based on a democratic political system. Not everyone thinks like you and I say that is the problem with democracy. Sometimes, the population as a whole is not wise enough to decide for themselves what is good for them and the government has to follow whatever the population perceives is good based on conventional wisdom but is actually not so.

In a society with Law and Order, every criminal must be judged and punished in accordance with the law. It is not up to the individual to have the right to kill another just because of whatever crime that may be perceived to be hurtful or whatever you wrote in your post. The law serves as a deterence. By putting guns into the hands of a civilian, you are toppling the very basics of a society based on law and order.

Along the same line of reasoning, every individual is ultimately responsible for his/her own safety. You can't sue the police/government because they didn't show up in time to protect you. This has actually been tried.

 

[Economist]

Of course, Malaysia and Singapore are only connected by 2 bridges, while the US of A and Canada are connected with a border which is thousands of kilometres long, but I believe that if the government is determined about border checks, then it is possible to reduce the number of illegal guns in the country.

There in lies the difference between border patrol in the two cases. The last part about "the gov't being determined" is bs. Do you realize how expensive it would be for the government to make sure no legal guns cross the border? America already taxes 25% of GDP, and I doubt US citizens want to see that rise to 30% or 35% for something like this.

 

[Oerg]

If you carry your argument out to it's logical conclusion than we should be voting on things like free-speech and slavery as well.

I don't really understand what you are saying, but i guess you are saying that the policies regarding issues like free-speech and slavery are goverend by the government.

When the population is voting for their government, then is it not so that they are voting for whatever the majority of the population would want or expect from the promises made by the respective candidates? In this sense, in a democratic society, you are voting on how you would like to be governed.

If I have candidate A that advocates guns in the hands of every civilians because every civilian ahs the right to protect himself while I ahve candidate B that advocates gun restriction to police only, then would it not be that the population is voting for whatever view or oipnion is prevalent among the general population?

 

[Economist]

I don't really understand what you are saying, but i guess you are saying that the policies regarding issues like free-speech and slavery are goverend by the government.

When the population is voting for their government, then is it not so that they are voting for whatever the majority of the population would want or expect from the promises made by the respective candidates? In this sense, in a democratic society, you are voting on how you would like to be governed.

If I have candidate A that advocates guns in the hands of every civilians because every civilian ahs the right to protect himself while I ahve candidate B that advocates gun restriction to police only, then would it not be that the population is voting for whatever view or oipnion is prevalent among the general population?

Yes, but my point is that it's probably not desirable to let people vote and make decision for other people whenever they want just because we have a democracy. You're claiming that we're voting on whether or not we should have gun control. I'm asking, if we should vote on gun control, then why shouldn't we vote of free-speech and slavery as well?

 

[Oerg]

There in lies the difference between border patrol in the two cases. The last part about "the gov't being determined" is bs. Do you realize how expensive it would be for the government to make sure no legal guns cross the border? America already taxes 25% of GDP, and I doubt US citizens want to see that rise to 30% or 35% for something like this.

Why not, i see it as a worhwhile investment, an extremely worhwhile investment. Not only would you be keeping guns out, but you would be keeping anything that you would not like out of the country like drugs and illegal immigrants.

Of course I am not implying that you can keep them out 100%, but in the case of my country, we do have drug and illegal immigrant problems but since we do not have gun problems, then it would seem reasonable to say that guns are easier to keep out then the other two items. BTW, guns and drugs both share the death penalty for the more serious offences so it couldn't have been stricter laws that are keeping out the guns.

 

[ShawnD]

but haven't actually seen any statistics for the fraction of gun-related crimes committed by cc permit holders. Could someone please post the stats for this?

Why would that matter? I'm reminded of Bowling for Columbine where Moore compared gun murders in different countries, because being stabbed in Canada is way better than being shot in the US. God only let's stab victims into heaven, you know?

edit: I'm not calling you out or anything. Just making it obvious that the bigger picture of overall crime is more important than the details. If CC permits cause the overall murder rate to go down but the gun-related murder rate to go up, I would see that as a good thing because fewer people are dying, while someone like Michael Moore would see that as a bad thing because he does a little dance every time someone is stabbed to death.

 

[Oerg]

Yes, but my point is that it's probably not desirable to let people vote and make decision for other people whenever they want just because we have a democracy. You're claiming that we're voting on whether or not we should have gun control. I'm asking, if we should vote on gun control, then why shouldn't we vote of free-speech and slavery as well?

Well my point is that by voting for the candidate that you would like to govern you, then you would be indirectly voting for issues like slavery and such because the candidate that you vote would best represent your views and needs unless you are telling me that :"I do not share the same views as candidate Z and I do not like his ideas for reforms but I would like him to govern me"; which I am sure would not be the case for most people.

In this sense, in a democracy, it is mostly the case when people will vote and make a decision for other people whenever they want. The individual view does not matter in a democracy. In a democracy, we are already voting on whether or not we want gun control and issues like free speech and slavery too. A good example would be if Candidate Z now says: I want slavery to return and no free speech please". Would you vote for him? Would the population vote for him? By voting for him, you are already voting on how you would like some issues to be treated.

 

[seycyrus]

Your poll is invalid, how can you poll prisoners and gather from their answers ithat tighter gun control laws would not make it harder for them to obtain weapons?.

If you are arguing that the prisoners do not know for a FACT that tighter gun control wouldn't make it harder, then I agree. It is speculation after all.

But I think that the people who have actually obtained guns illegally in the past would be the most familar with ins and outs of the balck market system and the ramifications on the system.

 

[Oerg]

If you are arguing that the prisoners do not know for a FACT that tighter gun control wouldn't make it harder, then I agree. It is speculation after all.

But I think that the people who have actually obtained guns illegally in the past would be the most familar with ins and outs of the balck market system and the ramifications on the system.

yep, that is my point. You ahve brought up a valid point too. These criminals know where to get their guns, that is why the think that stricter gun control laws like who and who can buy guns, or the processing of documentation that would be required to ahve a gun are useless.

In this sense, your poll is valid, but if were to outlaw guns altogether, then the poll is invalid because they were polled for stricter gun control laws. Furthermore, I am sure your country has not tried banning guns altogether too. So in this sense, it is invalid.

 

[drankin]

yep, that is my point. You ahve brought up a valid point too. These criminals know where to get their guns, that is why the think that stricter gun control laws like who and who can buy guns, or the processing of documentation that would be required to ahve a gun are useless.

In this sense, your poll is valid, but if were to outlaw guns altogether, then the poll is invalid because they were polled for stricter gun control laws. Furthermore, I am sure your country has not tried banning guns altogether too. So in this sense, it is invalid.

Because of the second amendment of our Constitution, banning guns altogether cannot be done, legally. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Economist]

Well my point is that by voting for the candidate that you would like to govern you, then you would be indirectly voting for issues like slavery and such because the candidate that you vote would best represent your views and needs unless you are telling me that :"I do not share the same views as candidate Z and I do not like his ideas for reforms but I would like him to govern me"; which I am sure would not be the case for most people.

Well, it'd be nice if it worked that way but it doesn't. When you select a candidate you're selecting a bundle of choices. Since people have fairly diverse opinions, they're forced to choose the lesser of two evils and the person who agrees with them the most. People might end up voting for a candidate that they only agree with on 25% of the issues. Other people will vote for those one only one issue (such as abortion), and others will vote because they like the candidate as a person, others vote when they're very uninformed.

A good example would be if Candidate Z now says: I want slavery to return and no free speech please". Would you vote for him? Would the population vote for him? By voting for him, you are already voting on how you would like some issues to be treated.

My point is that I shouldn't be allowed to vote for such a politician. The question is not whether this person would get elected, the point is if they should be allowed to make such decisions. Nobody has a right to suppress free-speech or inslave people even in a democracy. Just because some arrogant power hungry politician wants certain things does not mean they should happen. My point is that we've restricted democracy on many issues, we don't allow people to vote for anything and everything. With some things (I would even argue most things) the majority opinion does not matter. Just because the majority want something does not mean they should get it (because often times they're making decisions for other people).

Here's a good read: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691129428/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Evo]

I already did, look back at my previous posts in this thread. I posted 2 of his books, and 2 of the academic peer reviewed studies he wrote.

Obviously a book is not a peer reviewed study.

Please either give the post number where you posted links to the peer reviewed studies or repost them.

 

[Economist]

Obviously a book is not a peer reviewed study.

Please either give the post number where you posted links to the peer reviewed studies or repost them.

It's post #22

 

[Oerg]

Well, it'd be nice if it worked that way but it doesn't. When you select a candidate you're selecting a bundle of choices. Since people have fairly diverse opinions, they're forced to choose the lesser of two evils and the person who agrees with them the most. People might end up voting for a candidate that they only agree with on 25% of the issues. Other people will vote for those one only one issue (such as abortion), and others will vote because they like the candidate as a person, others vote when they're very uninformed.

I know what you mean, but this becomes insignificant as the issue becomes serious. On 25% of the issues they agree with, these must be the issues that are of top concern to them. Gun control should be something of top concern, besides everyone seems to have a different view on it while the views on other important issues may be shared by most politicians or candidates for elections.

With some things (I would even argue most things) the majority opinion does not matter. Just because the majority want something does not mean they should get it (because often times they're making decisions for other people).

de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system

(Definition by dicionary.com unabridged)

If there are alraedy a set of rules about how most issues should be treated, then what is the point of a government appointed by the people if the people have no say in how some issues should be treated?

It is a different thing altogether when the general population votes for how they want to be still treated by the same set of rules versus voting because they have no choice in how the rules can be changed.

drankin mentioned that the right to carry firearms is the second amendment to your constitiution. Are these rules already cast in stone? What if tomorrow the American public wants to abolish the right to carry firearms? Will the amendment still change? Will your political system still be democratic? If I have a new political party that wants to carry out the wishes of the American public will the party with the power of governance over the country have the power to abolish these rights? If so, can they really be in power of the country when the country has already been governed by an invisible view that gun rights are a mundane right that cannot be changed?

By saying what you said in your post, you just threw some of the fundamentals of democracy out of the window.

 

[Moridin]

The death penalty do not deter criminals, so why should the idea that some people might have concealed weapons?

Also note that correlation does not imply causation so all arguments presented based on correlation are invalid.

 

[drankin]

I know what you mean, but this becomes insignificant as the issue becomes serious. On 25% of the issues they agree with, these must be the issues that are of top concern to them. Gun control should be something of top concern, besides everyone seems to have a different view on it while the views on other important issues may be shared by most politicians or candidates for elections.




(Definition by dicionary.com unabridged)

If there are alraedy a set of rules about how most issues should be treated, then what is the point of a government appointed by the people if the people have no say in how some issues should be treated?

It is a different thing altogether when the general population votes for how they want to be still treated by the same set of rules versus voting because they have no choice in how the rules can be changed.

drankin mentioned that the right to carry firearms is the second amendment to your constitiution. Are these rules already cast in stone? What if tomorrow the American public wants to abolish the right to carry firearms? Will the amendment still change? Will your political system still be democratic? If I have a new political party that wants to carry out the wishes of the American public will the party with the power of governance over the country have the power to abolish these rights? If so, can they really be in power of the country when the country has already been governed by an invisible view that gun rights are a mundane right that cannot be changed?

By saying what you said in your post, you just threw some of the fundamentals of democracy out of the window.

Yes, the amendment can be amended. Whether it should or not is another discussion.