UAA students rally for right to carry guns

[LowlyPion]

UAA students rally for right to carry guns on campus
They see themselves as first responders, police stand-ins.
George Hines, a UAA student in his 40s, gets nervous sitting in class without his .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol.

http://www.adn.com/tales/story/770932.html

Personally I'd get nervous sitting in class, if I knew George Hines was carrying his semi auto .45.

And here we are 10 years removed from Columbine. Maybe the news really doesn't get to Alaska?

 

[moose]

http://www.adn.com/tales/story/770932.html

Personally I'd get nervous sitting in class, if I knew George Hines was carrying his semi auto .45.

And here we are 10 years removed from Columbine. Maybe the news really doesn't get to Alaska?

Not trying to start an argument, but what does this have to do with Columbine? Did they allow firearms in Columbine? No. He's probably nervous because of events like the Virginia Tech shootings and Columbine and such.

Also, this isn't anything new. I think most campuses have at some point rallied to try to allow people to carry concealed on campus. I know that its been tried at my school (UA).

 

[rootX]

"I don't ever want to be in a small room unprotected," he explains, "when I know there are people in this country that have proven time and time again that they want to cause damage and hurt people."

I find it bit funny how he sees his classroom.

Did gun possession ever prevented gun shootings? (I haven't heard of any incident where use of gun prevented a massacre)

I would also be bit uneasy as a student or as a professor knowing that half of students are carrying concealed weapons during the lecture.

 

[lisab]

I've spent a lot of time in Alaska (my dad lived there when I was growing up, and I went to the University of Alaska Fairbanks for a year), and I really really love Alaska.

But let me tell you - the place is really full of odd balls. Not clever, good-looking, sane, funny ones like in Northern Exposure...but a lot of truly odd people. Including paranoid ones...exhibition #1, Mr. George Hines.

 

[signerror]

And here we are 10 years removed from Columbine. Maybe the news really doesn't get to Alaska?

Yes, if only Columbine had a rule against carrying concealed weapons, that mess would never have happened.

As the cliche goes: "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Or something like that.

Personally I'd get nervous sitting in class, if I knew George Hines was carrying his semi auto .45.

If a US Army veteran were holstering a handgun in that class, I'd be much less nervous, thank you. (Assuming I were nervous to begin with.)

Hines, an Army veteran and journalism major...

 

[signerror]

By the way, this thread is clearly political in nature and I think it should be moved there.

 

[Moonbear]

They see themselves as first responders, police stand-ins.

Some news show did an episode on this concept...I can't remember which one, but the results weren't any surprise to anyone who takes a few minutes to think about this. They used a room arranged like a typical small lecture room and allowed people who thought they'd be better off if armed on campus to participate. They had people with a range of skill levels try it, including those who won awards as marksmen. The rest of the participants in the room were police playing the role of students panicking as a "shooter" entered the room.

Even in a controlled situation, where everyone knew there was no real harm from the "shooter," they all developed tunnel vision in their shooting. They took aim at the shooter, but were oblivious to other people running in front of them as people might if panicked, and didn't notice anyone on the other side of the "shooter." The simulation used paintballs as the ammunition, and there were more than just the shooter hit with the paintballs from the volunteers.

The other thing was that in some simulutions, they brought in a second shooter. Sometimes the second shooter was posing as another student "helping," only aiming at the first "shooter," and sometimes they were another criminal taking aim at other students. The volunteers couldn't tell the difference. Some weren't even aware a second shooter arrived, and those that were ignored them assuming they were helping not hurting.

The conclusion was simple and obvious...it's very different to be a good shot aiming at a paper target or while out hunting vs. when someone is shooting back at you. The people who want to play hero carrying guns around into classrooms generally lack the sort of training that law enforcement officers have to distinguish between the good guys and bad guys and maintain awareness of surroundings to avoid shooting other bystanders while confronting someone shooting back at them.

Edit: Here it is, it was on 20/20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MX3QtumSuE

 

[junglebeast]

What will we see next, protestors arguing for the right to carry concealed bombs on planes in order to blow up undercover terrorists who might be on the plane?

I'm "pro gun"...I own guns and I was even an officer on the university shooting club, but this is just silly.

Let students bring guns onto campuses and they'll only be tempted to brandish them, either to show off or joke around, which will at the very least make a lot of people uncomfortable and feel unsafe. It would also be an accident waiting to happen every time someone loses their judgment due to anger or drugs.

 

[junglebeast]

Even in a controlled situation, where everyone knew there was no real harm from the "shooter," they all developed tunnel vision in their shooting. They took aim at the shooter, but were oblivious to other people running in front of them as people might if panicked, and didn't notice anyone on the other side of the "shooter." The simulation used paintballs as the ammunition, and there were more than just the shooter hit with the paintballs from the volunteers.

YouTube please?

 

[signerror]

What will we see next, protestors arguing for the right to carry concealed bombs on planes in order to blow up undercover terrorists who might be on the plane?

Yes, that's the logical consequence, indeed.

Let students bring guns onto campuses and they'll only be tempted to brandish them, either to show off or joke around, which will at the very least make a lot of people uncomfortable and feel unsafe.

So you think constitutional rights should be infringed on out of respect for the feelings of others?

It would also be an accident waiting to happen every time someone loses their judgment due to anger or drugs.

How is this argument in any way specific to college campuses? You are equally well arguing that guns should be illegal everywhere, because they might be abused from bad judgement. But quite clearly the constitution affirms gun ownership as a right, not a privilege at the discretion of public officials. So where is your argument for exceptionalism for college campuses?

(PF readers - this argument is unique to the USA environment, where private gun ownership is both legal and protected by our constitution. Obviously these arguments don't apply to the EU, for example.)

 

[signerror]

Did gun possession ever prevented gun shootings? (I haven't heard of any incident where use of gun prevented a massacre)

In all the school shootings as far as I recall, in none of them were concealed weapons allowed in the first place. I'm confused by prior probabilities, but...

 

[rootX]

In all the school shootings as far as I recall, in none of them were concealed weapons allowed in the first place. I'm confused by prior probabilities, but...

I was thinking about public shootings particularly where guns are allowed. I am sure that guns can definitely help if someone breaks into your home or similar events. But, I seriously doubt that people can use guns for preventing public shootings. See Moonbear's post for why I think so.

 

[misgfool]

But let me tell you - the place is really full of odd balls. Not clever, good-looking, sane, funny ones like in Northern Exposure...but a lot of truly odd people. Including paranoid ones...exhibition #1, Mr. George Hines.

It's the temperature and isolation.

 

[WhoWee]

Maybe he has to walk home past a corner with hungry polar bears?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Some news show did an episode on this concept...

Along with this experiment let's consider how much more or less likely a shooting would be if it was general knowledge that students may well be carrying their own guns. I believe in most of these school shootings the deranged individuals were searching for a feeling of power; having guns among those that do not; making decisions about whether they will live or die. These things are not as possible when the victims may well have guns of their own.

Also should be considered how many people tend to die and become injured in these shootings and how many less may become victims if the shooter is taken down more quickly even if you count victims incident to crossfire.

I don't know the answers to these questions and do not necessarily believe guns in colleges are a good idea. I am only pointing out issues that could be taken with the interpretation of the findings of the experiment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Maybe he has to walk home past a corner with hungry polar bears?

I hear moose are pretty dangerous. ;-)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did gun possession ever prevented gun shootings? (I haven't heard of any incident where use of gun prevented a massacre)

Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002.

 

[WhoWee]

A friend moved to Anchorage for a few years, from Buffalo. One day his associates invited him to go hunting. He said "sure" and met them at the specified time/place. He borrowed a 12 gauge shotgun and purchased slugs.

The plan was to fly to a remote location on a specially equipped plane. When he arrived at the airport, with his shotgun, his friends all laughed and called him Elmer Fudd (or something comparable?). They explained a 12 gauge was fine for rabbits in Buffalo, but not Polar Bears in the wild.

They flew a long time, across vast expanses of open permafrost/tundra (whatever the correct term)...and he didn't see ANYTHING for miles...then they landed.

Upon arrival, he inquired about the area and they assured him it was perfect...as the plane left and they set up camp.

He further commented that he'd been looking out the windows and hadn't seen anything...and inquired as to how would they find their prey?

His friends laughed again and explained that the Polar Bears could smell him from 7 miles away...all they needed to do was sit and wait...and the bears would find them.

He said he didn't sleep until he got home.

 

[junglebeast]

So you think constitutional rights should be infringed on out of respect for the feelings of others? How is this argument in any way specific to college campuses? You are equally well arguing that guns should be illegal everywhere, because they might be abused from bad judgement. But quite clearly the constitution affirms gun ownership as a right, not a privilege at the discretion of public officials. So where is your argument for exceptionalism for college campuses?

It affirms gun ownership as a right, but not necessarily carrying of those guns into any place that you want. A property owner has the right to disallow people to enter onto his property. The govt owns public school property so it seems they can disallow people from entering onto the property without violating our right to bear arms. We also have a right to own traps for hunting...but you can't just start setting bear traps in your neighbor's lawn or the school cafeteria. How's that different?

I think it makes sense to make an exception of schools because they contain a dense population of younger, less mature people, and not very much privacy. A lot of would-be gun owners would be keeping their guns in their dorms without adequate protection, and with tons of people running in and out playing beer bong and what not, it wouldn't be long before people were showing off guns to their friends, having guns get lost or stolen...and by having them readily accessible it makes crimes of passion, which occur very frequently on campuses, more likely to be deadly. In areas where gang violence is an issue, those gang members would be bringing guns into school and brandishing them against people who don't have an interest in guns to intimidate them on a regular basis.

Once a person leaves school it is easier for them to avoid these sorts of dangerous areas, and they have more privacy allowing them to store their guns more safely and use them for protection of their home area.

 

[berkeman]

The conclusion was simple and obvious...it's very different to be a good shot aiming at a paper target or while out hunting vs. when someone is shooting back at you. The people who want to play hero carrying guns around into classrooms generally lack the sort of training that law enforcement officers have to distinguish between the good guys and bad guys and maintain awareness of surroundings to avoid shooting other bystanders while confronting someone shooting back at them.

I think Moonbear and Vanadium have touched on the key point in all of this. At least in California, to get a CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) permit and keep it current, you need to keep your Gun Card current, which involves classroom time and range time for the particular caliber(s) you want to be qualified for. A big part of Gun Card qualification is gun safety, which includes combat shooting safety (for bystanders, not for the target).

I don't know the rules in other states, but if everyone in my classroom had a current CCW and Gun Card, I have absolutely no problem being a fellow student or the professor. And I grade on a curve, folks...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In areas where gang violence is an issue, those gang members would be bringing guns into school and brandishing them against people who don't have an interest in guns to intimidate them on a regular basis.

In areas where gang violence is a serious issue they have to have metal detectors at the entrances because gang members bring guns and knives to school anyway.

 

[NeoDevin]

A big part of Gun Card qualification is gun safety, which includes combat shooting safety (for bystanders, not for the target).

I doubt the training is sufficient, or sufficiently frequent, to prevent the types of problems in the video that Moonbear posted (and part 2). You have a link with more detail on the training required?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I doubt the training is sufficient, or sufficiently frequent, to prevent the types of problems in the video that Moonbear posted (and part 2). You have a link with more detail on the training required?

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/gettingstarted/ccwarticle.html

No training is required for a conceal carry permit per se. The likelihood that you would be able to obtain a conceal and carry just for the heck of it is very slim. You must give a good reason and "I want to have one with me in class at school" is unlikely to float. The only persons likely to have a conceal carry permit here in California that allow them to carry a weapon concealed on their person at all times are law enforcement types. Private investigators, body guards, ex police officers, ect. and the ability to carry a firearm as part of any of these professions is strictly regulated by the state. I do not know spefically about each and do not care to look them up but I know that a standard armed security guard permit requires qualification at a shooting range twice per year. And an armed guard is only allowed to carry while on the clock.

 

[drankin]

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/gettingstarted/ccwarticle.html

No training is required for a conceal carry permit per se. The likelihood that you would be able to obtain a conceal and carry just for the heck of it is very slim. You must give a good reason and "I want to have one with me in class at school" is unlikely to float. The only persons likely to have a conceal carry permit here in California that allow them to carry a weapon concealed on their person at all times are law enforcement types. Private investigators, body guards, ex police officers, ect. and the ability to carry a firearm as part of any of these professions is strictly regulated by the state. I do not know spefically about each and do not care to look them up but I know that a standard armed security guard permit requires qualification at a shooting range twice per year. And an armed guard is only allowed to carry while on the clock.

It's determined by the particular state you reside in. Some states require training in order to conceal and others do not.

 

[drankin]

It affirms gun ownership as a right, but not necessarily carrying of those guns into any place that you want. A property owner has the right to disallow people to enter onto his property. The govt owns public school property so it seems they can disallow people from entering onto the property without violating our right to bear arms.

The US gov't is owned by the citizens of the US. It is not a "private person" with individual rights. That argument is invalid.

I've proposed this idea before. I think it is reasonable that people carrying in public should be trained and/or certified in the use of a handgun. But, I also think it is the responsibility of the gov't to make such training available without restriction to those who, of course, pass all the prequalifications. After that, they should be able to carry anywhere. Schools, hospitals, anywhere labelled "GUN FREE ZONE". Because that tends to be where all the lunatics like to go on their shooting sprees. WHERE NOONE ELSE IS ARMED.

 

[cristo]

Some news show did an episode on this concept...

Thanks for sharing the video, MB. I'm glad an experiment has finally been done on this, and aired to the public, showing that it really is not beneficial to be carrying guns in the classroom!

Along with this experiment let's consider how much more or less likely a shooting would be if it was general knowledge that students may well be carrying their own guns. I believe in most of these school shootings the deranged individuals were searching for a feeling of power;

You touch on the main point here: these people are deranged. Thus, you can't draw any conclusions as to whether they may or may not be put off by the students carrying weapons, since they don't think like normal people. These people aren't afraid to die, either: how many of these criminals walk out alive after the incident?

Also should be considered how many people tend to die and become injured in these shootings and how many less may become victims if the shooter is taken down more quickly even if you count victims incident to crossfire.

But, as shown in the experiment, none of the students managed to "take down" the gunman. Even students who had lots of experience either only hit the gunman in the arm, or were peppered before hitting him (of course, one shot to a student's torso and you're not likely to stand there shooting back anymore!)

I do not know spefically about each and do not care to look them up but I know that a standard armed security guard permit requires qualification at a shooting range twice per year. And an armed guard is only allowed to carry while on the clock.

Even if this training is a requirement, it's clear from part 2 of Moonbear's link that this is not sufficient to cope with any real life situation: the police officer in the video mentioned that if he didn't get specialist firearms training every month (and not just standing at a range) he would be less effective at his job, and more of a threat to the general public.

If a police officer is saying this, then untrained students who believe they are the first line of defence is quite laughable!

 

[matthyaouw]

Along with this experiment let's consider how much more or less likely a shooting would be if it was general knowledge that students may well be carrying their own guns. I believe in most of these school shootings the deranged individuals were searching for a feeling of power; having guns among those that do not; making decisions about whether they will live or die. These things are not as possible when the victims may well have guns of their own.

I'm not sure how put-off these people would be. Most of these shootings I've heard of end with the shooter taking their own life, so whether or not others are armed is quite inconsequential. All they need is a few seconds to take some shots...

But, as shown in the experiment, none of the students managed to "take down" the gunman. Even students who had lots of experience either only hit the gunman in the arm, or were peppered before hitting him

I'm not sure how much of a fair test this was. In the video, the gunman was a trained professional, in a stable state of mind and quite likely knew what to expect and which student would be carrying the gun. Everything was tipped in their favour.

 

[cristo]

Everything was tipped in their favour.

But in attacks like these, everything is tipped in the gunman's favour anyway! The element of surprise is always with the gunman, as he simply runs into rooms and shoots people. The experiment clearly showed that a student cannot "take down" a gunman entering the classroom in such a manner. In these situations, you're bound to have a split second to make the judgment; namely when the gunman shoots the first person. Even if the gunman did know in the audience was armed, this doesn't make a difference when the student jumps up and (trys to) draw a weapon on the gunman: he sees it then anyway!

If there were some slight differences, say the students took one bullet before disabling the gunman, then maybe your argument holds. However, in all the instances, the students either didn't shoot/hit the gunman or hit the gunman once whilst having taken over 5 bullets.

Let's put it this way: if armed response police officers reacted in that way, I would wonder why we're paying their wage. For students (or even any general member of the public) to claim they can respond in a way befitting of an armed police officer even after having watched this experiment is pretty shocking, if not wholly naive!

 

[junglebeast]

Let's put it this way: if armed response police officers reacted in that way, I would wonder why we're paying their wage. For students (or even any general member of the public) to claim they can respond in a way befitting of an armed police officer even after having watched this experiment is pretty shocking, if not wholly naive!

I'm one of the [few] people agreeing with the current legislature that guns shouldn't be allowed on school grounds.

However, the argument that "you shouldn't be able to use a gun to defend yourself because you probably suck at using it" is not very convincing.

This little demonstration is not exactly hard proof that students or the general public are completely incapable of defending themselves. It also neglects the fact that some people who are attending school might actually be highly trained with a firearm.

 

[WhoWee]

You have to consider the location. Alaska does not have the population density of the states normally associated with gun/violence/street crime/gang problems, etc. A debate to carry at USC, Columbia, Georgetown, Villanova, Boston College, Pitt, Miami, etc. would include a much broader range of concerns.

Also, the personal reasons the gentleman interviewed stated may not be indicative of the majority population of Anchorage.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I think Moonbear and Vanadium have touched on the key point in all of this.

I don't think I made any point at all. Just answering rootX's question.

Of course "prevent a massacre" is a very high standard. If a gunman gets a few shots off himself before he himself is subdued, the massacre hasn't been prevented. It's effects have been curtailed. If the gunman didn't get any shots off, this will be portrayed by his attorneys as a case where a vigilante crowd overreacted to a mentally ill man brandishing a gun with no intent to fire. (What else would you expect them to say?)

There is also media bias. I'm not talking about a perceived bias of the media towards one or the other pole of the political spectrum, but that the media tends to report - and repeat - stories that are spectacular, extraordinary and dramatic. A gunman who shoots up a school or a shopping mall is makes for a more dramatic story than one where he is subdued by off-duty police before anything happens. So we shouldn't be surprised if a search for well-publicized examples gives us a different answer than a statistical study. (This is why people think air travel is more dangerous than automobile travel - every plane crash is reported. Car crashes are only reported if Britney Spears was driving)

 

[cristo]

This little demonstration is not exactly hard proof that students or the general public are completely incapable of defending themselves. It also neglects the fact that some people who are attending school might actually be highly trained with a firearm.

Did you watch the video (including the second part?) The experiment included at least two people who were as "highly trained with a firearm" as one could hope for, having fired several weapons for hundreds of hours at a firing range. Of these students, one just froze and the other fired two shots into the wall and two into the floor, whilst hitting the shooter once on the arm. In the firefight she took 6 bullets to the torso.

It's not "hard proof," but it's experimental evidence: the only experimental evidence we have. Of course, many people will just try and brush it off, but then that's natural when someone's personal opinions get in the way of extracting fact from a situation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Breaking news: a UGA professor just shot a number of people on campus.

 

[signerror]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/25/georgia.shootings/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iw8wxkpeLufk-1Be-7iJBhA344iAD97PMIJG1

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Three people were killed Saturday at a community theater near the University of Georgia, and authorities were searching for a professor in the shooting deaths.
...
Athens-Clarke Assistant Police Chief Alan Brown tells The Athens-Banner Herald that there is "some indication he may have had multiple weapons."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You touch on the main point here: these people are deranged. Thus, you can't draw any conclusions as to whether they may or may not be put off by the students carrying weapons, since they don't think like normal people. These people aren't afraid to die, either: how many of these criminals walk out alive after the incident?

Again, the people who do this sort of thing are looking for power and control. Do they walk into police stations? Military bases? Or even locations with armed security guards?
And everyone is afraid to die. They don't walk out themselves because they usually kill themselves, another means of maintaining control.

But, as shown in the experiment, none of the students managed to "take down" the gunman. Even students who had lots of experience either only hit the gunman in the arm, or were peppered before hitting him (of course, one shot to a student's torso and you're not likely to stand there shooting back anymore!)

Sorry, I was at work and had not actually watched the video. I was working solely off of Moonie's description.

I'm not sure how much of a fair test this was. In the video, the gunman was a trained professional, in a stable state of mind and quite likely knew what to expect and which student would be carrying the gun. Everything was tipped in their favour.

But in attacks like these, everything is tipped in the gunman's favour anyway! The element of surprise is always with the gunman, as he simply runs into rooms and shoots people. The experiment clearly showed that a student cannot "take down" a gunman entering the classroom in such a manner. In these situations, you're bound to have a split second to make the judgment; namely when the gunman shoots the first person. Even if the gunman did know in the audience was armed, this doesn't make a difference when the student jumps up and (trys to) draw a weapon on the gunman: he sees it then anyway!

If there were some slight differences, say the students took one bullet before disabling the gunman, then maybe your argument holds. However, in all the instances, the students either didn't shoot/hit the gunman or hit the gunman once whilst having taken over 5 bullets.

In attacks like these the shooter is rather unlikely to be a highly trained weapons expert. How many head shots did the shooter get? A very difficult target even for a calm collected professional. Change that to a more or less average joe with adrenaline pumping through their system. On top of that these shooters rarely just shoot everyone. They target certian individuals that they recognize and take take pot shots at other random targets. A real shooter will likely have the same issues as these would be heroes in the experiment: adrenaline, focusing only on individual targets, surprise at the reactions of the students, ect.

I would also argue that the set up of the scene is rather unrealistic. The would be heroes have been programmed to believe that they are there to try to shoot these people and take that as their objective (in a simulation no less) rather than the standard objective of survival. I think you will have a hard time finding anyone outside of those with military or military like training whose initial response to real shooters would have been Shoot To Kill. I also believe that the reactions of the students was unrealistic. A significant number of people are more likely to decide to hide rather than run. In most descriptions of mass shootings you will find that several people describe themselves and others hiding under desks and such. No one in the video hid except maybe temporarily. They all jumped up, screamed, and ran for the door despite the fact that the danger was in that direction and a normal flight response is to flee away from danger. In videos of real shootings you will even see people running at walls and away from doors. The actions of the students only served to leave the student (who had been preprogrammed to shoot instead of flee or hide) with the gun the center of attention who was of course sitting front and center in every run.

Take out the trained pros and actors, replace them with regular people who don't know exactly what will be happening, then I'll be more inclined to believe the outcome.

 

[rootX]

Again, the people who do this sort of thing are looking for power and control.

Sorry I might have missed but last time you were assuming this. Can you prove that they are looking for power and control? I think it would be far easier to tackle the problem if we know what is causing it.

I think neither complete ban in the classrooms nor providing full training would solve this problem which in my opinion is resulting from complex social problems (poverty, child care, environment etc). So you wouldn't be addressing the real problem in either of those two options.

 

[rootX]

Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002.

Thanks.

 

[rootX]

Also should be considered how many people tend to die and become injured in these shootings and how many less may become victims if the shooter is taken down more quickly even if you count victims incident to crossfire.

While I agree but I see some serious ethical/law issues. Who is going to take the responsibility for the deaths by error?

 

[junglebeast]

Did you watch the video (including the second part?) The experiment included at least two people who were as "highly trained with a firearm" as one could hope for, having fired several weapons for hundreds of hours at a firing range. Of these students, one just froze and the other fired two shots into the wall and two into the floor, whilst hitting the shooter once on the arm. In the firefight she took 6 bullets to the torso.

It's not "hard proof," but it's experimental evidence: the only experimental evidence we have. Of course, many people will just try and brush it off, but then that's natural when someone's personal opinions get in the way of extracting fact from a situation.

Yes, I did watch the video -- and thanks to Moonbear for posting it! It was entertaining to watch. However, I think you are missing my points here... your opinion on a person's ability to defend oneself should not take away their right to attempt to defend oneself.

A person either has a right to defend oneself, or they don't...and it's not your business to judge the abilities of the general population without knowing who those people might be.

For example, a person might be an active member of the local swat team who also happens to be a student at the local university while off duty. Do you still think that person is so hopelessly incapable of defending themselves and others? Because the law applies to that person as well.

 

[JasonRox]

I used to fight against guns, but now I support it. I think we should be allowed to own a whenever we please.

I can't imagine fighting against the government without guns. We would be hopeless.

 

[junglebeast]

I can't imagine fighting against the government without guns. We would be hopeless.

I think you would be pretty hopeless fighting against the government with a gun as well, but you might at least be able to die with glory and take a few people down with you.

 

[cristo]

However, I think you are missing my points here... your opinion on a person's ability to defend oneself should not take away their right to attempt to defend oneself.

It's not an opinion on the ability of a person to defend himself. As I said above, there is experimental evidence that an average person, with or without shooting range experience, is unable to defend himself. I'm also taking the words of a proven expert, namely the marksman in the video, who said that he would require refresher training in a hostage type environment every month, otherwise he would become less able to do his job in a safe way.

Are you telling me that I cannot take the results of an experiment, and the advice of a trained expert? If so, then I'm afraid this is equivalent to a kid saying "I know better.."

For example, a person might be an active member of the local swat team who also happens to be a student at the local university while off duty. Do you still think that person is so hopelessly incapable of defending themselves and others? Because the law applies to that person as well.

If someone is a part time student and an active member of a swat team, then sure, let him carry a gun. But this is an anomaly, and thus not worth considering.

I can't imagine fighting against the government without guns. We would be hopeless.

I can't imagine anyone fighting against a government with a gun... and winning!

 

[junglebeast]

It's not an opinion on the ability of a person to defend himself. As I said above, there is experimental evidence that an average person, with or without shooting range experience, is unable to defend himself. I'm also taking the words of a proven expert, namely the marksman in the video, who said that he would require refresher training in a hostage type environment every month, otherwise he would become less able to do his job in a safe way.

Are you telling me that I cannot take the results of an experiment, and the advice of a trained expert? If so, then I'm afraid this is equivalent to a kid saying "I know better.."

You have clearly misinterpreted this little news media game to be an "experiment", and somehow you think it also has unambiguous results? Please do share with us what new facts about life this video has unquestioningly proven. By my count: nada. This is not a scientific experiment. It doesn't prove anything. It's a non-random sample of a statistically insignificant size lacking in experimental control.

No scientific experiment will ever prove that it is impossible for a person to defend oneself with a gun, because a simple proof by contradiction already exists for that false claim: a person is capable of pulling a trigger, the bullet is capable of killing the assailant, therefore a person is capable of defending oneself, period.

It seems that your argument can be surmised as, "I saw this one demonstration with a couple people who pretended to be in a shootout, and the one person got shot, therefore nobody else in the world is capable of defending themselves and should not have the right to even try, regardless of who that person may be and how much experience they might have...and if you disagree with me, then you don't believe in science."

 

[drankin]

I see that people are concerned about accidental shootings by those defending themselves if there was a shooter in a public area. To be scientific, we should look at instances people were accidentally shot in these circumstances and compare them to situations where a purp was actually subdued and/or prevented from carrying out his plans because of an armed citizen. I can't seem to find any references of accidental shootings under these circumstances. But I can provide info to where individuals were able to defend themselves both in their home and in public without harm to bystanders.

One of a few places online that posts encounters gun owners have had:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

 

[drankin]

Actually, I take that back, there was an innocent bystander shot in one of those accounts. A store clerk was in the process of being robbed and was able to shoot the robber but also wounded a bystander.

 

[rootX]

One of a few places online that posts encounters gun owners have had:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Thanks for the link.

 

[Loren Booda]

What if owning and driving a car were a fundamental, Constitutional, human right?

 

[drankin]

What if owning and driving a car were a fundamental, Constitutional, human right?

? What's the relation to this thread?

We do have a Constitutional right to interstate travel (tenth amendment I beleve), the right to personal property (14th Amendment). ??

 

[junglebeast]

If someone is a part time student and an active member of a swat team, then sure, let him carry a gun. But this is an anomaly, and thus not worth considering.

It's not really an anomoly because the majority of people, who aren't prepared to use a gun, don't own a gun. The people who would likely take advantage of this kind of law are people who already have an enthusiasm in guns and defense -- and on average would all be significantly more experienced than a kid who owned an airsoft gun, or another kid who had spent a few days at the range.

Drankin, thanks for that link..interesting read

 

[Loren Booda]

? What's the relation to this thread?

We do have a Constitutional right to interstate travel (tenth amendment I beleve), the right to personal property (14th Amendment). ??

Both guns and cars kill tens of thousands each year in the US, but nobody claims any other mechanical, deadly contrivance than a gun to be Constitutionally protected. I think target shooting is great, and have eaten hunted game, but that possession of guns should be regulated, not misinterpreted as a right.