News Mass shooting in N Illinois University

[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.