News Mass shooting in N Illinois University

[cristo]

I doubt very much that the founders would hold this view. They had the most modern guns, which is why they had single shot pisols, muskets, and bluderbusses. If people had AK-47's back then you can bet your bottom dollar the framers would have had them and supported them.

How can you guess what your founding fathers would think if they were here today? Anyone can "bet their bottom dollar" on something that will never have any chance of being proven incorrect!

It seems that everytime something like this happens we get a thread started that goes along the same sort of lines. Regulars know my opinion, so there's no point me restating it again and again every few months down the line. It's incredibly worrying, however, to hear about the number of shootings that happen in the states. It seems to be getting worse and worse. That may be because I've become more inclined to listen to world news in the past year or so, though, as I don't have any statistics to back me up.

 

[cristo]

You have the right to protect yourself with a gun in your home, or business. However, when you walk down main street, its the job of the police to protect you. You're still claiming that I am encroaching on your rights to carry a gun, when I am say that's NOT a right that you have. I have no problem with you owning a modern TANK, but it can't leave your driveway unless there is a revolution going on.

I think this post makes a lot of sense. If the world becomes a place where everyone is their own private policeman then it will become a very dangerous world indeed!

 

[drankin]

However, when you walk down main street, its the job of the police to protect you. You're still claiming that I am encroaching on your rights to carry a gun, when I am say that's NOT a right that you have.

But it is a right that we do have. You are saying people do not have the right to carry when they actually do. This is why I constantly wondering what country you really live in. Depending on what state (I count 31 shall issue carry permit states) "main" street is in, chances are that regular citizens can carry their own gun. Do you acknowledge this or are you in denial of this fact?

 

[drankin]

I think this post makes a lot of sense. If the world becomes a place where everyone is their own private policeman then it will become a very dangerous world indeed!

FYI, concealed carry permits have been issued in a majority of US states for many years now and there is not statistical data that this has been a safety issue. More and more states are seeing this fact and loosening restrictions. You ARE your own private policeman when it comes to your personal safety in this country. There is even such a thing as a "citizens arrest". You can run, do nothing and be victimized, or defend yourself. It's a free country that way. This is the way it has been for some time. In some states, it has always been this way.

 

[cristo]

You ARE your own private policeman when it comes to your personal safety in this country.

Why not abolish the police force then? Your country would be a lot richer: perhaps you could throw this money into giving each citizen a gun for free? Oh, perhaps we're forgetting that a police force has to be level headed, not panic in an emergency, uphold the law in a responsible way and, above all else, not danger others' lives whilst trying to uphold the law. Can every citizen do that? Of course not; which is why you have a police force in the first place!

There is even such a thing as a "citizens arrest". You can run, do nothing and be victimized, or defend yourself. It's a free country that way. This is the way it has been for some time. In some states, it has always been this way.

But "defending yourself" is not the same as a citizen's arrest. How are you going to arrest someone if you have already shot him?

 

[Economist]

I think this post makes a lot of sense. If the world becomes a place where everyone is their own private policeman then it will become a very dangerous world indeed!

First of all, individuals do have the right to be their own policeman. Why wouldn't someone have this right? Like I've said over and over again, the only reason the cops have a right to protect you is because you have the right to protect yourself in the first place.

Second, your concerns are completely overblown. Many states already do allow their residents to carry concealed weapons, and we don't have the dangerous world you're so worried about. In fact, it's actually possible that such a world would be less dangerous (for this argument, see the work done by John Lott that I mentioned earlier).

 

[Economist]

Why not abolish the police force then?

Well, we need cops for a lot more than just protecting people. Arrest drug dealers, give people parking and speeding tickets, and many other duties that citizens would not handle themselves. However, when it comes to protecting yourself in a dangerous situation, you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, or if you choose you can rely on the cops. I wouldn't waste my time performing cop duties because it's not worth it, but if I was in a dangerous situation I would protect myself because it is definitely worth it.

 

[cristo]

Well, we need cops for a lot more than just protecting people.

I was being sarcastic.. I thought that would be pretty obvious since it's a ridiculous idea. I can't believe you even entertained the idea!

Why do you need a gun to perform a citizen's arrest? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself and keep yourself safe? If someone pulls a gun on you in the middle of a street and tells you to give you your wallet, what do you do? Would you pull out your gun on him? If so, do you think this will make you more or less likely to be shot?

 

[Huckleberry]

I was being sarcastic.. I thought that would be pretty obvious since it's a ridiculous idea. I can't believe you even entertained the idea!

Why do you need a gun to perform a citizen's arrest? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself and keep yourself safe? If someone pulls a gun on you in the middle of a street and tells you to give you your wallet, what do you do? Would you pull out your gun on him? If so, do you think this will make you more or less likely to be shot?

Does it matter? People have the right to life, liberty and property. Their rights to protect those things cannot be revoked by the government. Should the government pass a law that if your property is illegally demanded from you under threat of death then one must relinquish their rights? If the government takes away an individual's right to choose to defend their property then that is basically what they would be doing. Some people would rather choose death than lose their liberty. Let them choose for themselves if their wallet is worth their life.

edit - It might not be wise to rely on the mercy of someone who threatens one's life to obtain one's property. They might just take the wallet and shoot the individual anyway. It doesn't matter what a criminal is trying to take. What matters is that they are threatening deadly force to try and take it. Some people would rather not submit to that behaviour. The founding fathers certainly didn't.

 

[grant9076]

From a logical perspective, being approached menacingly by a stranger (or strangers) when you are alone is a bad situation. If you are armed, you have the option of leveling your weapon at the would be attacker and saying something to the effect of "Get Lost!". If he leaves in a hurry, then your weapon has served its function. If he is undeterred, then you really need to have that weapon. If you are unarmed, then you are probably in serious trouble.

Another logical perspective is that violent criminals only select situations where they believe that they have a clear superiority of force (nobody starts a fight with the intention of getting his own a$$ kicked). If you are targeted by such a person, your only hope is to make sure that the person has grossly miscalculated (have a weapon that he does not know about). Otherwise, you will be at the mercy of the merciless.

 

[siddharth]

From a logical perspective, being approached menacingly by a stranger (or strangers) when you are alone is a bad situation. If you are armed, you have the option of leveling your weapon at the would be attacker and saying something to the effect of "Get Lost!". If he leaves in a hurry, then your weapon has served its function. If he is undeterred, then you really need to have that weapon. If you are unarmed, then you are probably in serious trouble.

On the other hand, if he gets frightened/aggressive/provoked when he sees your weapon, and shoots you dead, that's the worst outcome. Another outcome if you're unarmed, is that he might simply end up stealing cash, but not killing you.

IMO, it's interesting that many people in this thread completely ignore certain points of view and counterexamples while sticking only to one point of view.

 

[drankin]

Why not abolish the police force then? Your country would be a lot richer: perhaps you could throw this money into giving each citizen a gun for free? Oh, perhaps we're forgetting that a police force has to be level headed, not panic in an emergency, uphold the law in a responsible way and, above all else, not danger others' lives whilst trying to uphold the law. Can every citizen do that? Of course not; which is why you have a police force in the first place!

But "defending yourself" is not the same as a citizen's arrest. How are you going to arrest someone if you have already shot him?

Now this is silly.

 

[drankin]

On the other hand, if he gets frightened/aggressive/provoked when he sees your weapon, and shoots you dead, that's the worst outcome. Another outcome if you're unarmed, is that he might simply end up stealing cash, but not killing you.

I'd rather have a little more control over what does and doesn't happen to me. To lay down whimpering, hoping the attacker is having a good day and doesn't shoot me, is not a situation I'm going to allow myself to be in.

You have the right to put yourself in that position, no one is arguing against that. Just don't expect others to.

 

[drankin]

Why do you need a gun to perform a citizen's arrest?

You don't.

Why do you need a gun to defend yourself and keep yourself safe?

You don't. It simply increases your odds.

If someone pulls a gun on you in the middle of a street and tells you to give you your wallet, what do you do?

Might want to give him your wallet if he has the drop on you.

Would you pull out your gun on him? If so, do you think this will make you more or less likely to be shot?

It's a silly question and it doesn't really matter. Maybe I would draw my firearm, maybe I wouldn't. If I react in a way that gets myself shot so what. By not reacting I could get myself shot. You don't freakin know. It's an irrelevant hypothetical question. The real question is, do I have the right to defend myself with a gun against someone else that has a gun. I THINK THE ANSWER SHOULD BE "YES"??

 

[Moridin]

By having a weapon, you are more likely to use it against someone in your family accidentally and you will probably aggravate the bad guys to do worse (that is why, for instance, women are discouraged from carrying knifes as protection against rape, since it can be used as a weapon against them).

Do you think pulling a gun will make the bad guy more or less likely to shoot, that should be the real question here.

 

[drankin]

By having a weapon, you are more likely to use it against someone in your family accidentally and you will probably aggravate the bad guys to do worse (that is why, for instance, women are discouraged from carrying knifes as protection against rape, since it can be used as a weapon against them).

Do you think pulling a gun will make the bad guy more or less likely to shoot, that should be the real question here.

This is NOT a relevant question. Whether he is more or less likely to shoot (and hit you) is speculation and doesn't really matter. Whether an individual should be able to defend themselves against such a person with their own gun IS relevant.

 

[grant9076]

On the other hand, if he gets frightened/aggressive/provoked when he sees your weapon, and shoots you dead, that's the worst outcome. Another outcome if you're unarmed, is that he might simply end up stealing cash, but not killing you.

IMO, it's interesting that many people in this thread completely ignore certain points of view and counterexamples while sticking only to one point of view.

If I am totally surprised and blindsided, then I do what he says. However, if I am armed and have the slightest hint that such a situation is unfolding, I will make sure that my weapon is pointed at him first. Now, if he wants to kill me, then he will need to be a very fast draw because I am a reasonably decent shot (qualified as a marksman with a handgun).

I wouldn't be too worried about being hit by someone, with the minimum amount of training, firing at me in a hurried manner, from 50 feet with a handgun held in one hand.

How can you be sure that he has only minimum training? One of the first things that I learned about any type of combat is that you must assume that the enemy knows how to use his/her weapon to the fullest extent of its designed capability. Otherwise, it is like assuming that a doberman doesn't know how to bite.

On that note, many people who qualify as experts with handguns have to place all fired bullets on target at distances up to 25 yards (75 feet) with about 90% of the rounds inside a circle which is the diameter of a volleyball.

 

[Huckleberry]

Do you think pulling a gun will make the bad guy more or less likely to shoot, that should be the real question here.

The real question here should be what can be done to prevent mass killings. Most of the talk about gun control in this thread isn't focused on the topic. Its a tired subject that always seems to dominate threads related to these mass shooting incidents. It shows me that people are generally more concerned with how news may affect them personally than any kind of sentiment to the victims or perpetrator of these shootings.

The kind of people that perform these shootings are typically not criminals at all. They aren't muggers and rapists lurking in dark alleyways waiting to get the drop on gramma with their shiny new pistol. They aren't self-declared, John Wayne cowboy types with a hankering for the wild west lifestyle. They are hurt individuals who are rejected harshly from family and social circles, and fall into a cycle of self-defeatism. They lack certain skills that would allow them to have any success in any normal relationship. They sabotage themselves to reinforce their world-view, because to do otherwise would be to take personal responsibility for their beliefs. If we look at them before the act that they perform, that we so despise and fear, then we would see a very, very sad life, perhaps worthy of our sympathy. The real crime in this thread isn't about your average law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. The crime is that we are so self-interested that we don't even seem to care about what motivates these people, or what can be done to help them. (Society likes to reinforce its own world-view. That so often seems to be the topics of controversial debates. It makes me think we are avoiding taking responsibility for our own actions, such as societies role in creating these mass shooters.)

 

[daveb]

I just thought of an interesting proposition about cc permits. Suppose they were obtainable by all law abiding citizens in every state. Do you suppose that a criminal, now knowing this, would decide to not commit his crime, or would he decide that, since it's now possible his victim may be carrying a weapon, to just kill him quickly?

 

[cristo]

If I am totally surprised and blindsided, then I do what he says. However, if I am armed and have the slightest hint that such a situation is unfolding, I will make sure that my weapon is pointed at him first. Now, if he wants to kill me, then he will need to be a very fast draw because I am a reasonably decent shot (qualified as a marksman with a handgun).

Well, I hope you're alone when this happens as I hate to think about what would happen to a law abiding citizen who happens to be walking by when you get the slightest hint of danger.

Seriously, some people watch way too many action films and try to live their life by them.

 

[grant9076]

Well, I hope you're alone when this happens as I hate to think about what would happen to a law abiding citizen who happens to be walking by when you get the slightest hint of danger.

Seriously, some people watch way too many action films and try to live their life by them.

Actually, a big part of my formal weapons training is in recognizing and avoiding dangerous confrontations (which I have done with 100% success). I was only referring to scenarios where a dangerous confrontation proves to be unavoidable.

 

[drankin]

I just thought of an interesting proposition about cc permits. Suppose they were obtainable by all law abiding citizens in every state. Do you suppose that a criminal, now knowing this, would decide to not commit his crime, or would he decide that, since it's now possible his victim may be carrying a weapon, to just kill him quickly?

I would like to think that a good percentage of these types would find a different way to steal money that doesn't require them to confront an armed person.

 

[Astronuc]

School Shootings The Result Of Crisis Of Masculinity, Gun Culture, Professor Argues
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217133643.htm

In "Guys and Guns Amok: Domestic Terrorism and School Shootings from the Oklahoma City Bombing to the Virginia Tech Massacre" (Paradigm, 2008), UCLA professor of education and cultural critic Douglas Kellner argues that school shootings and other acts of mass violence embody a crisis of out-of-control gun culture and male rage, heightened by a glorification of hypermasculinity and violence in the media.

"The school shooters and domestic terrorists examined in this book all exhibit male rage, attempt to resolve a crisis of masculinity through violent behavior, demonstrate a fetish for guns or weapons, and represent, in general, a situation of guys and guns amok," Kellner says.

Hmmm.

 

[drankin]

School Shootings The Result Of Crisis Of Masculinity, Gun Culture, Professor Argues
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217133643.htm
Hmmm.

Interesting, I think there is something to this.

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm not sure I agree that school shooters typically exhibit hypermasculinity. The act itself is hypermasculine to the extreme, but the lives of these people seem to be anything but that. They aren't known for their physical strength or aggression, or their virility. Often people who knew them would describe them as quiet and withdrawn, hardly exhibiting any hypermasculine qualities. They may admire the hypermasculine qualities of other men, real or fictitious, exactly because they feel powerless themselves.

Male rage I can definitely see in school shooters. My guess is that the majority of school shooters were physically or sexually abused, and felt neglected and unwanted by their families. The shame they feel is internalized into rage and leaves them unable to cope with social pressure. Society can be very judgemental and unforgiving at times.

Whilst it is not very difficult to see how these qualities infuse much of mainstream political activity. it is equally clear that such rage is disowned and unconscious. hiding behind a veneer of civilised rationality. However, one consequence of such denial is that it is projected onto particular groups who become demonised as the carriers of the rage in its overt and manifest forms.

http://www.achillesheel.freeuk.com/leader19.html

I notice at the very top of Kellner's list is stricter gun control laws, which is odd because it is the least effective thing on that list for preventing school shootings. I'll just assume that they are in no particular order, and any personal political views are unintentional.

Kellner recommends stricter gun control laws; improved campus and workplace security; better guidance and mental health care on campuses and in communities; a reconstruction of education to promote programs advocating peace and social justice; and projecting new and more constructive images of masculinity.

I think all the other ideas are excellent! Changing the social view of what is acceptable of masculine behaviour would be the most effective change, but also the most difficult to control.

 

[seycyrus]

By having a weapon, you are more likely to use it against someone in your family accidentally and you will probably aggravate the bad guys to do worse (that is why, for instance, women are discouraged from carrying knifes as protection against rape, since it can be used as a weapon against them).
QUOTE]

These statements are incorrect. They are either due to faulty science or in the latter case, a totally made up statistic.

Educate yourself. It is up to you to stop promoting these myths.

 

[Gokul43201]

By having a weapon, you are more likely to use it against someone in your family accidentally ...

These statements are incorrect. They are either due to faulty science or in the latter case, a totally made up statistic.

Educate yourself. It is up to you to stop promoting these myths.

Is the first statement incorrect too?

Is it then more likely that there will be a shooting accident if there is no weapon at home?

Also, I'd asked for a reference to the statistic you stated about gun crimes committed by cc permit holders.

 

[kev1829]

How can you be sure that he has only minimum training? One of the first things that I learned about any type of combat is that you must assume that the enemy knows how to use his/her weapon to the fullest extent of its designed capability. Otherwise, it is like assuming that a doberman doesn't know how to bite.

On that note, many people who qualify as experts with handguns have to place all fired bullets on target at distances up to 25 yards (75 feet) with about 90% of the rounds inside a circle which is the diameter of a volleyball.

I should rephrase that. If I were a moving target, being fired at by someone with a handgun, I would not be too concerned about being hit. Regardless of their level of training. How many "experts" can hit a moving volleyball while having the vollyball recklessly shoot bullets at them? How often does the "expert" hit the spectators behind the volleyball? Handguns are extremely difficult to hit things with. This is why soldiers are given automatic weapons for combat. Your handgun is much more likely to hit anything other than your intended target.

No one on here is suggesting that you don't have the right to protect yourself, just that your methods shouldn't be able to negatively affect others.

For those who want ccw's: Where do you spend your time that you feel the necessity to have deadly force to protect yourselves?

 

[seycyrus]

Is the first statement incorrect too?

It is a deceptive statement.

That is more of an incidence of faulty logic/science. More likely compared to what? To shoot and kill an assailant? You do not have to shoot an assailant, even less kill them, to use a gun effectively for self defensive.

Is it then more likely that there will be a shooting accident if there is no weapon at home?

Do you use the same logic to dictate the usage of knives, forks, spoons, hammers? How about cleaning agents? How about swimming pools? Look up the leading causes of accidental household deaths. Guns aren't in the top 5.

Also, I'd asked for a reference to the statistic you stated about gun crimes committed by cc permit holders.

Oh, I'm sorry. I did not realize it was me that you were referring to. Were you the poster that said something like "Some people have talked about studies..." ?

I'm having a hard time coming up with the data on that statistic either way. I stumbled across is a few years back, when Missouri was considering a CC law, but now can't find it. I'll keep looking tho.

 

[seycyrus]

For those who want ccw's: Where do you spend your time that you feel the necessity to have deadly force to protect yourselves?

Anywhere.

Here's a question for you. Where do you live that you trust criminals more than honest citizens?

 

[kev1829]

Anywhere.

Here's a question for you. Where do you live that you trust criminals more than honest citizens?

I don't trust criminals more than honest people. I just don't assume that every stranger I come into contact with is a criminal who has it in their mind to victimize me. If that were the situation, I would change my situation. I enjoy going out and not considering that I will be a victim. If that were the case, I would consider myself to be living in fear...a victim every single day.

Oh, I live in Dorr, Michigan.

 

[drankin]

For those who want ccw's: Where do you spend your time that you feel the necessity to have deadly force to protect yourselves?

How about the university one might be attending?

I carry everywhere. Some days I don't carry at all. Depends a great deal on what I am wearing, and where I am going. Chances are very good that a violent crime will never befall me. But, if it ever happens I want to be as prepared as I can.

 

[seycyrus]

I don't trust criminals more than honest people. I just don't assume that every stranger I come into contact with is a criminal who has it in their mind to victimize me.

But it is ok to assume that honest citizens with a CW are going to shoot the place up?