News Mass shooting in N Illinois University

[Economist]

No, you may not. Thats exactly why I asked you about the grandmother question. You don't have the 'right to play police man'. You absolutely do NOT have any authority to go over there and shoot the guy to help grandma from being mugged.

Quite simply, you don't have any right to 'carry a gun', you have the right to OWN a gun.

I might not be allowed to shoot the person for grandma, but I sure as hell can shoot the guy if he's mugging me.

See, I think you have it backwards, and I'm basically arguing from a very Fredric Bastiat point of view here. The only reason a cop has the right to shoot someone who is harming me is precisely because I have the right to actually shoot the person who is harming me in the first place. Since all citizens have the right to protect themselves, they can choose to delegate this duty to government (in this case specifically the police). You see, the only reason the cops have the right to shoot someone who is trying to hurt you is because you actually hold this right yourself. In essence, you are just hiring the police to do something that you have the right to do yourself. Lastly, allowing the police to protect you does not destroy your right to also protect yourself.

To get back to a little more practical argument, you make it sound like police can really help people in these situations. When a women is getting mugged or raped, the cops will not be there for her. Even if she could call them (which the criminal is surely not going to let happen) they probably wouldn't be there in time. Look, if everyone had there own team of police bodygaurds to follow them around where ever they went, then it'd be a little bit different of a debate (although I'd still support concealed weapons permits).

As long as I'm not misusing my gun to enchroach on your rights, then you don't have a say in whether or not I carry one. Once I do something stupid with it though, then you can surely take it away.

 

[Astronuc]

Gunman Was Once ‘Revered’ on Campus
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/15cnd-shoot.html
By MIKE NIZZA

A day after a lecture hall was attacked at Northern Illinois University, the gunman emerged in two portraits not easily reconciled.

In recent weeks, Steve Kazmierczak, turned erratic after suspending an unidentified medication. He gathered the tools for a slaughter, and carried it out quickly, silently and without emotion.

But that person bore no resemblance to the 27-year-old man who Donald Grady, the chief of the college’s department of public safety, said “was revered by the faculty and staff and students alike” and was completely unknown to police.

“There were no red flags,” Mr. Grady said. Later, he told The Chicago Sun-Times, “It’s unlikely that anyone would ever have the ability to stop an incident like this from beginning.”

Mr. Kazmierczak bought two of the four guns used in the attack — a 12-gauge shotgun and a 9-millimeter Glock pistol — six days ago from a gun dealer in the Champaign area where he lived, and they were legally registered to him, authorities said. The two other pistols, a 9-millimeter and a .38-caliber, were being traced.

On Thursday afternoon, he parked near the 200-seat Cole Hall, and carried his shotgun in a guitar case and the pistols and ammunition strapped to his body, concealed by a coat, Mr. Grady said.

. . . .

Two officers arrived in the area less than a minute after the shooting began and several other officers reached the scene two minutes later, he said. But the gunman killed himself before officers entered the building, leaving behind a blood spattered hall with 21 victims.

So the only way for an armed person to intervene would have been to be in the audience of students in the hall, and have a clear line on the gunman.

What if a student walked in front of said armed person and was killed? What happens when someone carrying a concealed weapon accidently shoots an innocent person?

Driving isn't a right - it is a privilege based on demonstration of competency. I think carrying/using guns should be treated the same way.

If we really get down to details, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution knew about single shot pistols, muskets and blunderbusses. They did not contemplate repeating rifles, 6-shot revolvers, semi-automatic pistols or rifles, and machine guns. I think they may have considered the right to bear arms differently if such weapons existed then.

 

[Evo]

When a women is getting mugged or raped, the cops will not be there for her. Even if she could call them (which the criminal is surely not going to let happen) they probably wouldn't be there in time. Look, if everyone had there own team of police bodygaurds to follow them around where ever they went, then it'd be a

The reason why carrying a gun in the hopes of avoiding a mugging is useless should be obvious. The mugger will take the woman by surprise and she will have no opportunity to take the gun out of her purse and use it. That's one of the first things you are taught in a self defense course. Things like guns and pepper spay are useless unless you already have them in your hand and you're not grabbed in a position which will prevent you from getting a clear shot at your attacker. The chances of a woman getting hurt because she has a false feeling of security is an added detriment.

Not to mention that the attacker could probably take the gun away from the woman and use it on her.

 

[Cyrus]

I might not be allowed to shoot the person for grandma, but I sure as hell can shoot the guy if he's mugging me.

See, I think you have it backwards, and I'm basically arguing from a very Fredric Bastiat point of view here. The only reason a cop has the right to shoot someone who is harming me is precisely because I have the right to actually shoot the person who is harming me in the first place. Since all citizens have the right to protect themselves, they can choose to delegate this duty to government (in this case specifically the police). You see, the only reason the cops have the right to shoot someone who is trying to hurt you is because you actually hold this right yourself. In essence, you are just hiring the police to do something that you have the right to do yourself. Lastly, allowing the police to protect you does not destroy your right to also protect yourself.

To get back to a little more practical argument, you make it sound like police can really help people in these situations. When a women is getting mugged or raped, the cops will not be there for her. Even if she could call them (which the criminal is surely not going to let happen) they probably wouldn't be there in time. Look, if everyone had there own team of police bodygaurds to follow them around where ever they went, then it'd be a little bit different of a debate (although I'd still support concealed weapons permits).

As long as I'm not misusing my gun to enchroach on your rights, then you don't have a say in whether or not I carry one. Once I do something stupid with it though, then you can surely take it away.

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.

 

[drankin]

If you brought the founding fathers back from the dead and let them view the world now, they would agree more than ever that it is an individuals right to carry a firearm to protect themselves. A few weeks ago a couple of co-workers were downtown Seattle minding their own business when they were confronted by a small group of guys provoking a fist fight. One of the coworkers was able to call the police and told them he had a gun and would use it if he had to, the police never came. In that situation, I wouldn't pull out my firearm either. But my point is, you can't count on the police to be there for you. I know cops, both my brother and my cousin are cops. They have no issue with people carrying a gun to protect themselves. They know they are usually there long after an event happens.

 

[kev1829]

Do you have any facts to support your claims of what someone with a ccw would do?

No facts. In my opinion, handguns are prone to being "pulled" when fired. Due to their short length this greatly diminishes accuracy as distance increases. 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.

At one point the shooter stopped to reload obviously not worried about anyone firing back at him.

He killed himself when he was done. Obviously he was never concerned about being mortally wounded!

 

[Oerg]

No facts. In my opinion, handguns are prone to being "pulled" when fired. Due to their short length this greatly diminishes accuracy as distance increases.

That is right, and a rifle is far more accurate than a hand gun. In a rifle, the long barrle allows for grooves that forces the bullet to turn when it leaves the muzzle. This means that it will be more accurate as it is less affected by wind.

Rifles also have higher penetrating power than a pistol.

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

Sorry, I was using an extreme point of view for emphasis. It didn't escape my notice that shooters, and criminals in general, choose vulnerable targets. They don't open-fire on gun shows or police stations or places where people are likely to oppose them. No fear of death does not make a person brave. What these people fear is being opposed. They want others to fear them because they feel powerless. It is a way for them to reclaim their personal concept of dignity by threatening those perceived as weak. They are cowards. (they want to show the world that they are strong)

There is another type of killer that is looking for vengeance specific against a particular organization or situation. It comes from the feeling of being trapped, forced into actions that one does not want to particpate in but cannot escape from. For example, military shootings are often of this type; such as the guy that rolled a grenade into a tent in the invasion of Iraq. (they want to show the world that they are angry)

A philosophy of seperation, ostracism, and distrust of individuals because of their proclivity towards these type of behaviours is exactly what creates these types of behaviours. These are the people that most desperately crave sympathy and are unable to find it. I think more or less guns will do nothing to prevent this type of behaviour. A better solution is to create a society that values freedom and respects the less fortunate.

It is already illegal for criminals to have guns and yet they have them and use them. They use them because law abiding people can also have guns, so the criminal must use the threat of a gun to be stronger than the victim. Taking the guns away from law abiding citizens would probably reduce gun-related crime in the long run, but not reduce overall violent crime. Criminals would be less likely to use the threat of a gun, but they would still have guns and there would be just as many criminals. I don't see it as an acceptable solution.

edit- I don't believe gun bans would have any effect on mass killings.

 

[Huckleberry]

Criminals don't need a license to carry a concealed firearm. Doing so would only alert authorities that this individual intends to carry. It would seem counter productive to their intent.

Here is a study by the Minnesota House of Representatives Research Department on the effects of concealed carry permits in the US.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf"

From the individuals that I know with concealed carry permits, they say that police love to see these things. They say they actually save money having a concealed carry permit because it gets them out of being issued traffic tickets.

 

[BobG]

You can run and hide but who are you to tell another he cannot defend him/herself? 8hrs of training will certainly train you enough to evaluate your environment, safely draw your pistol, release the safety, aim, hit your target. If 5% of the students had guns, it is less likely you will have people showing up to shoot up the place. A gun-free zone is a plinking gallery for wackos.

Ironically, military bases are gun-free zones. Personal fire arms are supposed to be stored at the armory. You can get them from the armory anytime, but you can't store them in the dormitories or base housing. It mainly affects the younger, lower ranking military members living in the dorms since only the dorms are ever subject to inspections.

Of course, it's hard to get on to a military base, so you're not likely to get a random wacko roaming the base. The only one I've heard of was Fairchild AFB in 1994, but there's a lot fewer military bases than schools.

 

[Oerg]

It is already illegal for criminals to have guns and yet they have them and use them. They use them because law abiding people can also have guns, so the criminal must use the threat of a gun to be stronger than the victim. Taking the guns away from law abiding citizens would probably reduce gun-related crime in the long run, but not reduce overall violent crime. Criminals would be less likely to use the threat of a gun, but they would still have guns and there would be just as many criminals. I
.

an interesting theory would be that because of the ease to overpower someone with a gun, that is why criminals resort to crime, because it is easy to commit crime.

Just think that you are a criminal and you want to rob a bank because you are in a huge debt. Would you use a gun or a knife? If a gun is unavailable, would you still rob a bank with a knife? Especially banks that are protected by some sort of securitiy with guns?

 

[BobG]

an interesting theory would be that because of the ease to overpower someone with a gun, that is why criminals resort to crime, because it is easy to commit crime.

Just think that you are a criminal and you want to rob a bank because you are in a huge debt. Would you use a gun or a knife? If a gun is unavailable, would you still rob a bank with a knife? Especially banks that are protected by some sort of securitiy with guns?

A toy gun would be enough. Even with armed security guards, the goal is to identify the thief via security cameras, etc and apprehend him after he leaves the bank. No one wants a shoot out in a bank full of customers. The guards are there more for the protection of the customers than protection of the money.

Unless things go horribly wrong, a bank robber's problems don't begin until after he leaves the bank.

 

[Huckleberry]

an interesting theory would be that because of the ease to overpower someone with a gun, that is why criminals resort to crime, because it is easy to commit crime.

Just think that you are a criminal and you want to rob a bank because you are in a huge debt. Would you use a gun or a knife? If a gun is unavailable, would you still rob a bank with a knife? Especially banks that are protected by some sort of securitiy with guns?

Owning a gun does not transform a person into a criminal. I would imagine that nobody uses a gun to rob a bank because they are in debt. Criminals are criminals because they have no respect for the rights of others, not because they have guns. They find themselves in a criminal culture that is separate and at odds with that of society. If for some reason a criminal was not able to get a gun then they would be more likely to rob a home or a business with some other weapon.

It's a mistake to compare every criminal to a mass killer. They are two different types of animals. It distracts from the topic of this thread when the focus is on your average criminal.

 

[Oerg]

A toy gun would be enough. Even with armed security guards, the goal is to identify the thief via security cameras, etc and apprehend him after he leaves the bank. No one wants a shoot out in a bank full of customers. The guards are there more for the protection of the customers than protection of the money.

Unless things go horribly wrong, a bank robber's problems don't begin until after he leaves the bank.

Hmm... yeh a toy gun would be enough. But I think not every would-be criminal would think that the goal of the security would be to secure the safety of the customers rather than to apprehend them.

Owning a gun does not transform a person into a criminal. I would imagine that nobody uses a gun to rob a bank because they are in debt. Criminals are criminals because they have no respect for the rights of others, not because they have guns. They find themselves in a criminal culture that is separate and at odds with that of society. If for some reason a criminal was not able to get a gun then they would be more likely to rob a home or a business with some other weapon.

It's a mistake to compare every criminal to a mass killer. They are two different types of animals. It distracts from the topic of this thread when the focus is on your average criminal.

There are many kinds of criminals and their motives and style vary widely. I was just referring to the typical criminal that has been driven to his edge because of debt. Anyway, I was only replying to your comment that the violent crime rate would not fall simply by outlawing guns.

 

[Huckleberry]

There are many kinds of criminals and their motives and style vary widely. I was just referring to the typical criminal that has been driven to his edge because of debt. And I thought the topic of this thread was on mass killings ( Campus Shootings)?

Criminals have no respect for debt. If they could take a loan for a million dollars they would, never intending to pay it back. Paying debts is not a concern of violent criminals, though it might be motivation for a psycopathic rampage. The people who do mass killings want to be respected by society. Criminal culture has its own rules for respect and authority. They have no reason to care if society accepts them or not. Psycopathic killers are not typical criminals, nor do they think like them.

 

[Moonbear]

So the only way for an armed person to intervene would have been to be in the audience of students in the hall, and have a clear line on the gunman.

What if a student walked in front of said armed person and was killed? What happens when someone carrying a concealed weapon accidently shoots an innocent person?

Precisely. And what are the chances that a student out in the classroom with a gun would have had a chance to pull it out of wherever he was carrying it and get a clear aim at the gunman before the other students around him were already standing up, running around in panic, and perhaps even knocking him down as he tried to stand still to get a clear shot (making him an even clearer shot to the gunman with no regard for hitting bystanders) while everyone else was trying to run out around him? Better for the other students to know the bullets are only coming from one direction when they are trying to find cover somewhere.

Driving isn't a right - it is a privilege based on demonstration of competency. I think carrying/using guns should be treated the same way.

I agree with this. And, what strikes me here is that a medical doctor can intervene in someone's ability to obtain a driver's license if they have a condition that would make it unsafe for them to drive, but there doesn't seem to be any way for one to report that a person has an underlying medical condition that makes it unsafe for them to possesses a firearm (i.e., threat to self or others).

If we really get down to details, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution knew about single shot pistols, muskets and blunderbusses. They did not contemplate repeating rifles, 6-shot revolvers, semi-automatic pistols or rifles, and machine guns. I think they may have considered the right to bear arms differently if such weapons existed then.

I don't think they really wanted everyone to carry around guns all the time. Historically, it was more that they wanted local armories, accessible to all the citizens in the event of invasion, and for all the citizens to be provided training in how to use those weapons. That's the "well regulated" part of the well-regulated militia, and the right to BEAR arms, not the right to own arms.

The reason why carrying a gun in the hopes of avoiding a mugging is useless should be obvious. The mugger will take the woman by surprise and she will have no opportunity to take the gun out of her purse and use it. That's one of the first things you are taught in a self defense course. Things like guns and pepper spay are useless unless you already have them in your hand and you're not grabbed in a position which will prevent you from getting a clear shot at your attacker. The chances of a woman getting hurt because she has a false feeling of security is an added detriment.

Not to mention that the attacker could probably take the gun away from the woman and use it on her.

It could help to make your purse a lot heavier and harder when you get a good swing at the attacker...probably more likely to be effective than trying to dig around inside for a gun or pepper spray while being attacked, and more effective than actually pulling it out and risking the attacker overpower you and turn it against you before you get a chance to use it. Then again, carrying around a few large rocks might be just as useful.


Bottom line is that this case once again has nothing to do with guns themselves, but with a person with a psychiatric illness that either the people around him were too unaware of or didn't bother to intervene when he went off his medication and became noticeably erratic in his behavior.

 

[Oerg]

Criminals have no respect for debt. If they could take a loan for a million dollars they would, never intending to pay it back. Paying debts is not a concern of violent criminals, though it might be motivation for a psycopathic rampage. The people who do mass killings want to be respected by society. Criminal culture has its own rules for respect and authority. They have no reason to care if society accepts them or not. Psycopathic killers are not typical criminals, nor do they think like them.

hey sry huckle, i edited my post while you were still writing yours

I was referring to your previous post where you said banning guns wouldn't necessarily reduce overall vioolent crimes

 

[Economist]

If we really get down to details, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution knew about single shot pistols, muskets and blunderbusses. They did not contemplate repeating rifles, 6-shot revolvers, semi-automatic pistols or rifles, and machine guns. I think they may have considered the right to bear arms differently if such weapons existed then.

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.

The reason why carrying a gun in the hopes of avoiding a mugging is useless should be obvious. The mugger will take the woman by surprise and she will have no opportunity to take the gun out of her purse and use it. That's one of the first things you are taught in a self defense course. Things like guns and pepper spay are useless unless you already have them in your hand and you're not grabbed in a position which will prevent you from getting a clear shot at your attacker. The chances of a woman getting hurt because she has a false feeling of security is an added detriment.

Not to mention that the attacker could probably take the gun away from the woman and use it on her.

Well, one again I will promote the documentary Michael and Me which actually talks to some women who've protected themselves in these situations. Have you ever even shot or held a gun? It's not extremely hard to pull it out fairly quickly if your life depended on it.

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.

Why don't I have a right to protect myself in the street? I think you are mistaken. I have the right to protect my life, body, and safety. Why on Earth would me leaving my house give up the right of self-protection? Do you know how rediculous it sounds to that you have the right to protection only on your own property? Did you ever think that my body is my property, and therefore I am able to defend it regardless of where I go?

Once again, let's be realistic about the police, as they will not be there to protect you (unless you have an armed bodyguard). You probably won't have a chance to call them, and even if they are called it will take minutes for them to get there (at which time it will be too late).

 

[Economist]

Sorry, I was using an extreme point of view for emphasis. It didn't escape my notice that shooters, and criminals in general, choose vulnerable targets. They don't open-fire on gun shows or police stations or places where people are likely to oppose them. No fear of death does not make a person brave. What these people fear is being opposed. They want others to fear them because they feel powerless. It is a way for them to reclaim their personal concept of dignity by threatening those perceived as weak. They are cowards. (they want to show the world that they are strong)

There is another type of killer that is looking for vengeance specific against a particular organization or situation. It comes from the feeling of being trapped, forced into actions that one does not want to particpate in but cannot escape from. For example, military shootings are often of this type; such as the guy that rolled a grenade into a tent in the invasion of Iraq. (they want to show the world that they are angry)

A philosophy of seperation, ostracism, and distrust of individuals because of their proclivity towards these type of behaviours is exactly what creates these types of behaviours. These are the people that most desperately crave sympathy and are unable to find it. I think more or less guns will do nothing to prevent this type of behaviour. A better solution is to create a society that values freedom and respects the less fortunate.

It is already illegal for criminals to have guns and yet they have them and use them. They use them because law abiding people can also have guns, so the criminal must use the threat of a gun to be stronger than the victim. Taking the guns away from law abiding citizens would probably reduce gun-related crime in the long run, but not reduce overall violent crime. Criminals would be less likely to use the threat of a gun, but they would still have guns and there would be just as many criminals. I don't see it as an acceptable solution.

edit- I don't believe gun bans would have any effect on mass killings.

Your forgetting that most crimes are things like armed robberies, muggings, and rapes. These crimes have much more of a "self-interested" aspect to them. These are precisely the type of situations that concealed weapons laws are likely to protect, because these crimes tend to be more rational and strategic. This is why Dr. Lott finds decreases in these types of crimes from concealed weapon licenses. These school shootings probably wouldn't be deterred with concealed weapons although you may see less casualties when they do occur. But there probably would be a decrease in armed robberies, muggings, rapes, and similar crimes. If I was a woman, I think I would definitely carry a gun.

 

[kev1829]

I will promote the documentary Michael and Me...

The problem with documentaries is that they are subject to the author's opinions. While it may be an entertaining piece of media, it is still just a collection of opinions supported by facts that were chosen by the author. A documentary opposing gun ownership could just as easily be assembled.

 

[Economist]

The problem with documentaries is that they are subject to the author's opinions. While it may be an entertaining piece of media, it is still just a collection of opinions supported by facts that were chosen by the author. A documentary opposing gun ownership could just as easily be assembled.

I totally agree. However, documentaries can offer sides of an issue/arugment that you have not thought about (or not thought about in a particular way). It's an entertaining documentary. I also like the fact that he does interview some respectable people, such as constitutional law professors.

If you want a more factual analysis, then I would recommend the articles I referred to by John Lott.

 

[Gokul43201]

Also, read the following articles that rebutt Lott:

1. Ayres, Ian and Donohue, John J., "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis" (October 2002). Stanford Law & Econ. Working Paper 247; Stanford Public Law Research Paper 44; Yale Public Law Research Paper 28; Yale Law & Econ. Research Paper 272. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=343781 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.343781

Abstract
John Lott and David Mustard have used regression analysis to argue forcefully that "shall-issue" laws (which give citizens an unimpeded right to secure permits for concealed weapons) reduce violent crime. While certain facially plausible statistical models appear to generate this conclusion, more refined analyses of more recent state and county data undermine the more guns, less crime hypothesis. The most robust finding on the state data is that certain property crimes rise with passage of shall-issue laws, although the absence of any clear theory as to why this would be the case tends to undercut any strong conclusions. Estimating more statistically preferred disaggregated models on more complete county data, we show that in most states shall-issue laws have been associated with more crime and that the apparent stimulus to crime tends to be especially strong for those states that adopted in the last decade. While there are substantial concerns about model reliability and robustness, we present estimates based on disaggregated county data models that on net the passage of the law in 24 jurisdictions has increased the annual cost of crime slightly - somewhere on the order of half a billion dollars. We also provide an illustration of how our jurisdiction-specific regression model has the capacity to generate more nuanced assessments concerning which states might profit from or be harmed by a particular legal intervention.

2. Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

3. Black, Dan A.; Daniel S. Nagin "Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies 27 (1): 214 (1998).

4. And do not miss the review published by the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Law and Justice:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881

A quote from the executive summary:

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

(emphasis mine)

Note: Appendix A includes a dissent by J. Q. Wilson <link to page>

 

[Economist]

Also, read the following articles that rebutt Lott:

1. Ayres, Ian and Donohue, John J., "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis" (October 2002). Stanford Law & Econ. Working Paper 247; Stanford Public Law Research Paper 44; Yale Public Law Research Paper 28; Yale Law & Econ. Research Paper 272. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=343781 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.343781

Ayres is an interesting guy. There's a cool podcast that interviews him here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/ian_ayres/index.html

Ayres talks about his book, which sounds very interesting. They also briefly discuss his gun research and John Lott.

 

[Astronuc]

A bit of bitter irony in all this - "Same Gun Dealer Sold to 2 Campus Killers"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_re_us/niu_shooting_gun_dealer_1

The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.

Eric Thompson said his Web site, ****, sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide.

Another Web site run by Thompson's company, ****, also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

"I'm still blown away by the coincidences," Thompson said Friday. "I'm shaking. I can't believe somebody would order from us again and do this."

His company, TGSCOM Inc., based in Green Bay, shipped the order Monday, and records of the sale provided to The Associated Press by Thompson show Kazmierczak received the order Tuesday.

It would be a good idea to be able to background checks on people ordering guns online - don'tcha think!

 

[edward]

Ironically the guy bought all of the guns legally and had passed a background check.

 

[Huckleberry]

Your forgetting that most crimes are things like armed robberies, muggings, and rapes. These crimes have much more of a "self-interested" aspect to them. These are precisely the type of situations that concealed weapons laws are likely to protect, because these crimes tend to be more rational and strategic. This is why Dr. Lott finds decreases in these types of crimes from concealed weapon licenses. These school shootings probably wouldn't be deterred with concealed weapons although you may see less casualties when they do occur. But there probably would be a decrease in armed robberies, muggings, rapes, and similar crimes. If I was a woman, I think I would definitely carry a gun.

This thread isn't about most crimes. It's about mass killings in particular. It's only about concealed carry permits and other gun laws as far as they relate to mass killings, which personally I don't believe is very much at all. It's just what people like to talk about.

 

[edward]

I got to admit things are getting pretty bizarre. Around here police draw their weapons at the least little incident.


The American Experience 101

My son's fiance although the daughter of a USAF sergeant, had spent most of her life in England.

She came here several years ago to help care for her father and to seek employment.

Her first job was, of all things, selling cars at a local dealership. During her second week on the job she was out on a test drive with a young woman.

The young prospective purchaser was pulled over for speeding. My son's fiance, Nici, got out of the passenger side of the vehicle and walked back towards the officer. Walking towards the officer would have been perfectly normal in England.

The officer immediately drew his weapon and pointed it directly at her head and started screaming at her to get back in the car. Needless to say she was totally terrified.

The car had a dealer plate and Nici was wearing a business suit.

Where Nici grew up in northern England police didn't even carry weapons ,only night sticks, and she had never even seen a hand gun. Finding herself looking at the business end of a policeman's Glock 9mm over what to her was a non incident has left her quite shocked.

 

[Cyrus]

Why don't I have a right to protect myself in the street? I think you are mistaken. I have the right to protect my life, body, and safety. Why on Earth would me leaving my house give up the right of self-protection? Do you know how rediculous it sounds to that you have the right to protection only on your own property? Did you ever think that my body is my property, and therefore I am able to defend it regardless of where I go?

Once again, let's be realistic about the police, as they will not be there to protect you (unless you have an armed bodyguard). You probably won't have a chance to call them, and even if they are called it will take minutes for them to get there (at which time it will be too late).

You're not paying attention to a word I have said. You can protect yourself on the street, just not with a concealed weapon. I never said you can't protect your life, body, or safety. I said you can't do it with a gun in your pocket.

I did not say the police would be there, nor that they were perfect. But THEY are the law when you go out into public. You're not law enforcement becuase you have taken a few gun training courses to get your carry permit.

Even in self defense, you can get into a ton of legal trouble, and even jail time, if the judge thinks you over reacted and killed the guy. Maybe a woman was getting raped, but was he going to kill her, for her to kill him first? Was the mugger going to kill her when she shot him? There are lots of cases where claiming self defense can still land you in jail.

Lets say a guy breaks into your house trying to steal some money. You hear someone entering your house, get your gun and shoot him. Did you try and stop him before you shot him? Did he pose a threat to you? Was he running away from you as you shot him in your house?

 

[Huckleberry]

Laws vary from state to state, but you are allowed to use guns to protect yourself in public places as long as the threat of death is imminent. You are also allowed to protect grandma if someone is threatening her life. A mugging with a deadly weapon is an immenent threat to her life. Anyone that owns a firearm should be well-versed in the state laws that govern their use. In no case is one not allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or others against same.

 

[Economist]

You're not paying attention to a word I have said. You can protect yourself on the street, just not with a concealed weapon. I never said you can't protect your life, body, or safety. I said you can't do it with a gun in your pocket.

I promise I am actually paying attention to what you are saying.

I just wanted to get on the issue of self-protection for a minute. If you say I have the right to self-protection but then don't allow me the means to protect myself, it doesn't mean much. The criminal would probably have a gun or knife, and therefore not allowing me to carry a gun does not give me a sufficient way to protect myself in such a situation.

I did not say the police would be there, nor that they were perfect. But THEY are the law when you go out into public. You're not law enforcement becuase you have taken a few gun training courses to get your carry permit.

I know I am not law enforcment, which is why I can't go around protecting other people. But to argue that I can't adequately protect myself because I'm not law enforcement is ridiculous.

Even in self defense, you can get into a ton of legal trouble, and even jail time, if the judge thinks you over reacted and killed the guy. Maybe a woman was getting raped, but was he going to kill her, for her to kill him first? Was the mugger going to kill her when she shot him? There are lots of cases where claiming self defense can still land you in jail.

This is true, but does that make it right? On the documentary I keep talking about there is a very peculiar case in England. Some man's house kept getting broken into over and over by the same people, so he decided to buy a gun. The next time they broke into his house, he shot them. He is now being charged with all kinds of rediculous charges, and he will end up serving more time than the criminals who broke into his house. Is that right?

Just because something is the law, does not necessarily mean I will defend it. In fact, I don't know of anybody who defends all laws just because they are laws.

As far as I am concerned, someone has the right to shot anyone who tries to rape or mug them, and also has the right to shot anyone who breaks into your home. You rarely know exactly how much danger you're in in such a situation, and therefore you have the right to be a little on edge and over defensive. If people don't want to get shot at, then they shouldn't run around raping, mugging, or breaking into others homes.

I think its weird that you said, "the women was going to be raped, but was he going to kill her?" I would like to ask you, does it matter? If someone is going to rape someone else, do they not have the right to kill that person to stop it from happening?

An yes, there are lots of cases in which claiming self-defense can still get you in trouble. That's probably a good thing, because this way things can be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and be judged on the specific details.

Lets say a guy breaks into your house trying to steal some money. You hear someone entering your house, get your gun and shoot him. Did you try and stop him before you shot him? Did he pose a threat to you? Was he running away from you as you shot him in your house?

Again, if someone broke into my house I'd be scared sh!tless, and I would probably shot the person. You don't have much time to react, and you don't know how much danger you are in. I'm not going to sit here and defend some criminal who's breaking into peoples home, where their spouse and children sleep. As far as I'm concerned, to say that the resident should not have shot the perpetrator is to blame the victim.