quote:Tresopax, Mrs. M. was speaking about a specific few people, not the entire student body.
No, she wasn't. She was talking broadly about anyone who wanted a gun and made it through training, if I understood her correctly. There were ALREADY trained elites with weapons in the area; her assertion is that this was not sufficient.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would prefer that, were I ever concerned that something like that might happen to me, that I personally would have the option of legally carrying a weapon.
Of course, I don't even own such a firearm, so you can tell how much I, at this point, am worried about such scenarios.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: The first is the fear and adrenaline that would have been running high. Police are trained to remain calm and assess a situation, but their ability to isolate and prevent more escalation would have been hampered by a number of high adrenaline adults with guns moving about the campus.
It might be useful to see if we can find a law enforcement perspective on which situation they would have preferred to walk into, given the choice, especially if that perspective came from someone with past real experience in this sort of extreme crowd control. I expect I know the answer, but I would be guessing.
Shame we don't have a police officer here, so far as I know. (Hatrack, you are lacking! *shakes fist)
If you like I can get an actual quote from one of my associates who is in law enforcement. I'm basing my comments in part from what they've said anyway, so that may not be helpful. I personally have more experience with the security and protection realm, not law enforcement, but knowing what is required for those in the criminal justice system is helpful and adds perspective of just how much faith and responsibility is placed on those who wear the badge.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It might be useful to see if we can find a law enforcement perspective on which situation they would have preferred to walk into, given the choice, especially if that perspective came from someone with past real experience in this sort of extreme crowd control.
I'm not sure that would be a useful gauge. In my experience, many police officers would prefer it if nobody had firearms except for themselves, not necessarily because it's a better situation overall, but because it make their (admittedly difficult) job easier. If someone has a gun, they're either a cop or a bad guy.
I don't like the choice of being wholly unable to defend myself or being a bad guy.
Now, it may be that it's a better situation overall if nobody but the police and bad guys are armed, but it would be natural for police officers to have a personal bias on the issue.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree completeley with Troubador (way back on page 1).
And although I dislike John Howard as our prime minister for many reasons, I think he has a very valid point. Particularly, I agree "that the gun culture [...] is such a negative in the United States".
I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
I am glad that we in Australia don't have a gun culture. I feel safer for it.
But as Troubadour said, for America, the barn door is open. The culture is different.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really believe the only way to defend yourself is by having a gun? I apologize ahead of time if you take offense, but that sounds like too much hyperbole to be an acceptable argument. There is much more to self defense than your ability to attack back.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Against something like what happened the other day? I can't think of anything that comes close, especially if I consider defending the lives of others and not just myself (which seriously decreases the value of such defenses as just running away).
If there were something else as effective as a firearm, I'd expect to see the police using it instead of firearms.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Against something like what happened the other day? I can't think of anything that comes close, especially if I consider defending the lives of others and not just myself (which seriously decreases the value of such defenses as just running away).
If the other person shoots first? If the other person is wearing a ballistics vest? If you have a permit to have a gun but not a concealed carry (which requires a separate license and separate test in most states)? Owning a gun is not synonymous with being better equipped to defend yourself, especially in situations that include a psychopath randomly shooting individuals.
Please keep in mind also that this comes very close to the line of vigilantism, which is definitely not legal in any state.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
I do not agree. I do think that the tendancy to escalate in the face of threat is a danger, and that individuals who would prefer to use the gun culture as a mode of escalation can be dangerous. I am not opposed to citizens owning guns, however.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the other person shoots first? If the other person is wearing a ballistics vest?
I never said it was a perfect defense. I just said it seems be be the best defense.
quote:If you have a permit to have a gun but not a concealed carry (which requires a separate license and separate test in most states)?
I have no idea what you're asking, but I am well aware of what is required for concealed carry.
quote:Owning a gun is not synonymous with being better equipped to defend yourself, especially in situations that include a psychopath randomly shooting individuals.
I never implied that it is. I would never carry a gun that unless I were confident in my abilities to use it properly, which is one of the reasons I've never carried.
Nevertheless, I would like to have the option to do so if I ever felt the need.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Now, it may be that it's a better situation overall if nobody but the police and bad guys are armed, but it would be natural for police officers to have a personal bias on the issue.
Oh, of course. I assume there would be bias, and that would still have to be taken into account. I also figured that someone with this experience might have some actual numbers of how these incidents tend to play out, both when there are armed citizenry present and when there are not. I'd hope that would be part of the training. (But I don't know.)
I'd be more than a bit worried that dealing with even just a few cases of misjudgment and friendly fire during a panic situation might grievously dilute out the law enforcement response. Having shots fired in the 3 different places means 1/3 the concentrated response at each place, at least until the chaos gets sorted out.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another big reason I've never carried is that the amount of protection I might get in a highly improbable situation doesn't outweigh the burden of carrying death on my person.
Those scales may tip someday, though, and I would like my options to be open.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're also smart, responsible, nice kids who know how to keep their heads.
This could also describe the individuals in a mob. In other words, [it's like saying that] people are pretty smart and responsible when they are not doing dumb things.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another big reason I've never carried is that the amount of protection I might get in a highly improbably situation doesn't outweigh the burden of carrying death on my person.
Those scales may tip someday, though, and I would like my options to be open.
Then perhaps you and I aren't really disagreeing on the overarching issue, just on some of the semantics. I, too, choose not to carry for very similar reasons. It isn't a step I'm willing to take, but I understand and recognize the assumed right to having that ability.
I think the only specific we're diverging on are what we believe the actual requirements for owning and carrying firearms should be.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I do think the gun culture in the US is a negative. I don't know whether you guys will agree with that statement (in and of itself) or not.
Some of us will.
I figured some of you would.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: [QUOTE]I do not agree. I do think that the tendancy to escalate in the face of threat is a danger, and that individuals who would prefer to use the gun culture as a mode of escalation can be dangerous. I am not opposed to citizens owning guns, however.
From an outsider perspective, I would actually argue that the first two parts of your post are *part* of the gun culture in the US.
(I would also suggest that the gun culture in the US has gone way, way beyond citizens owning guns.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we're even disagreeing about that, as I haven't expressed any opinions on that subject, as I don't have strong opinions on that matter.
What I'm doing is questioning the idea that making sure that nobody but policemen and bad guys are armed is the best course of action.
----
Also, let me point out that I'm a big guy -- 6'3", 220 lb., and a black belt in Aikido. I am much more able to defend myself without a firearm than the average person. If I were a 5'2", 100 lb. woman who had to be out at night in places that weren't safe, I very well might feel that the burden of carrying a gun was worth the protection it provides.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I assume there would be bias, and that would still have to be taken into account. I also figured that someone with this experience might have some actual numbers of how these incidents tend to play out, both when there are armed citizenry present and when there are not. I'd hope that would be part of the training. (But I don't know.)
That would be another thing that varies by region. For officers who are in a large city precinct, it is often included in training in the case of there being armed individuals who are not involved with the criminal. In other areas, it may be included if there is an inclination of the state or local government to add that to the course curricula. It would also depend on what the person is training for, whether on a state or local level, if they are being trained for dealing with specific aspects of crowd control, or if they are part of a specialized unit (like SWAT) for whom such training is usually included. For the career officer, police tactical training is an ongoing process designed for the career track of the person pursuing it. Sometimes it is formal training, sometimes it is seminars, and sometimes it is peer sharing or tutoring. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that the school actually had the State law changed so that their campus could be a "gun free zone" (the applicable law being that, in Virginia, a concealed carry permit gave you the right to carry a gun anywhere in the state).
So, in a way, the gun free zones are just places where the people least likely to abuse their firearms do not carry them (that is, the law-abiders, who are NOT planning to kill as many random people as possible before they quit).
Or maybe I'm just overly influenced by the Penn abd Teller Bull---t episode I saw last night. (Which proposed the theory that the second amendment was actually designed so that the citizens could defend themselves against their own government, which is essentially what happened during the American Revolution. That idea appeals to me, for various reasons.) It went places that most things on this particular topic do not go.
As an irrelevant aside: I firmly believe that it would be a Bad Idea for me to carry a firearm. I'm too impulsive. My husband has a concealed carry permit, and is the best example I've seen of the type of person who can handle the responsibility.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: From an outsider perspective, I would actually argue that the first two parts of your post are *part* of the gun culture in the US.
(I would also suggest that the gun culture in the US has gone way, way beyond citizens owning guns.)
I can understand that, and sympathize. Unfortunately, there is indeed a subculture of gun owners that has gone far beyond just owning guns. My only advice to offer is that it is not as large as it may seem, and only hearing the loud few can often skew things a bit.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Or maybe I'm just overly influenced by the Penn abd Teller Bull---t episode I saw last night. (Which proposed the theory that the second amendment was actually designed so that the citizens could defend themselves against their own government, which is essentially what happened during the American Revolution. That idea appeals to me, for various reasons.) It went places that most things on this particular topic do not go.
Not for nothing, but I have seen that episode, and Penn definitely lays the hyperbole on pretty thick. The overall premise I agree with, but not his arguments in that episode. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Nowhere did I suggest that I thought that the entire VT campus should be armed. Forgive me if I wasn't clear on that. I do feel, however, that the VT students that I personally know and have gone through firearms trainings with would have been able to help in the situation. I am not talking about CHP certification, but about extensive personal safety and tactical classes. All of the trainings were taught by former or current law enforcement officers, who were extremely supportive (not to mention excellent teachers). I take my responsibility very seriously when it comes to concealed carry. I have hundreds of hours of training and I practice with my weapon regularly. I've also been shooting since I was a little girl, so I am very comfortable with and proficient with firearms. All of my firearms training (in 3 states) have been under law enforcement officers and they were all very supportive of trained civilians carrying guns. I don't dispute that there are law enforcement officers who feel differently - I can only speak to my own experience. I would greatly prefer that all gun owners had similar experience and training to myself.
quote:But Mrs. M, he wasn't a nonimmigrant alien, he was a permanent resident alien, and as such supposedly able to buy guns legally.
Thank you, Morbo, I didn't know that. That makes me feel a bit better.
I, personally, do feel that the only way to effectively defend myself and my child is with a gun. I am a 5'4'' woman - almost any man could physically overpower me. For me, carrying a gun isn't a power trip or the result of the urge to do violence - it's about freedom from fear.
As to knives and tasers, these require getting close to an attacker. A gun allows you to defend yourself out of the attackers reach.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My only advice to offer is that it is not as large as it may seem, and only hearing the loud few can often skew things a bit.
My relatively limited experience agrees with this. Of course, that might just be because my personal biases skew the percentages of the population that I tend to interact with. In other words, since I tend to not like crazies, I tend to not hang out with them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've thought seriously about carrying a handgun at a different time in my life. This was when I was younger, living alone, and working in rather unsafe areas. I also -- in desperation! -- almost applied for a permit to get a weapon in order to work as a security guard.
(You may stop laughing now. Thank you.)
At that time, I had essentially no work history and was facing living in my car. I was desperate for work, and I had just met a woman whose Dad was a local Sheriff and would help me find a security guard job. Luckily, the best philosophy prof evah (and my mentor, lucky me) intervened with other options. I had approached him to vouch for me on my permit application.
Oh, my goodness. He kept a straight face, bless him. [In self-presentation, especially back then, I am as unintimidating as they come. I practically had "pacifist Amish-like meek mouse who's never been kissed" in blazing neon above my forehead.]
Anyway, it isn't something that I considered beyond the pale, and I don't think less of myself for having considered it. I also don't think less of others for the same reasons. On the other hand, I do breath a sigh of relief when I cross the border out of the US again. (And this likely has as much to do other elements of the culture that may be fueling the desire to own and carry handguns as the handguns themselves.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Justa-- I think the hyperbole was almost necessary to make his point, though. And, you know, to have it still be funny. ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people. More specifically, MEN kill people...") *snort*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: That would be another thing that varies by region. For officers who are in a large city precinct, it is often included in training in the case of there being armed individuals who are not involved with the criminal. In other areas, it may be included if there is an inclination of the state or local government to add that to the course curricula. It would also depend on what the person is training for, whether on a state or local level, if they are being trained for dealing with specific aspects of crowd control, or if they are part of a specialized unit (like SWAT) for whom such training is usually included. For the career officer, police tactical training is an ongoing process designed for the career track of the person pursuing it. Sometimes it is formal training, sometimes it is seminars, and sometimes it is peer sharing or tutoring.
Thanks for the clarification!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
send in the marines to confiscate ALL the guns, if anyone resists declare martial law.
IP: Logged |
posted
What about the possibility of putting tougher restrictions on ammunition? You would have to prove "need" to purchase bullets - x for home protection, x for a hunting trip. Whatever those numbers would reasonably be. Your ammunition purchases would be recorded. Also there could be ways of coding the bullets to track down who purchased them.
Sure there are ways around it, but it would take some time to stock up enough for a killing spree.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Against something like what happened the other day? I can't think of anything that comes close, especially if I consider defending the lives of others and not just myself ...
quote: The risk of death by gunshot has been cut in half in Canada and is far smaller than in the United States, Statistics Canada says. ... In a cross-border comparison for the year 2000, Statistics Canada says the risk of firearms death was more than three times as great for American males as for Canadian males and seven times as great for American females as for Canadian females. ...
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What about the possibility of putting tougher restrictions on ammunition? You would have to prove "need" to purchase bullets - x for home protection, x for a hunting trip. Whatever those numbers would reasonably be. Your ammunition purchases would be recorded. Also there could be ways of coding the bullets to track down who purchased them.
Sure there are ways around it, but it would take some time to stock up enough for a killing spree.
When I go shooting with my brothers, we would each probably buy more ammunition for an afternoon at the shooting range than Cho used to kill 32 people. Interesting idea though.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is relatively simple to load your own ammunition.
My uncle does so, and once asked him if it saves him money. "No," he replied, "it just means that I get to shoot more for the same cost."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I asked you yesterday afternoon about what you thought about restricting firearm sales to ex-cons. You responded that such laws seem like a good idea.
However, you seem opposed to attempts to license or otherwise regulate guns in similar manner as automobiles. You've described the root of your opposition as being that the right to bear arms is in the Constitution.
The two views seem to me to be a bit at odds with each other. It looks like you favor one set of laws that would be philosophically at odds with your opposition to similar laws.
If I'm misrepresenting you at all, feel free to point it out. I'm just wondering how you personally reconcile the two positions.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Yeah, Justa-- I think the hyperbole was almost necessary to make his point, though. And, you know, to have it still be funny. ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people. More specifically, MEN kill people...") *snort*
It is true. In the hands of the responsible, a gun is no more dangerous than a bat or a knife or a well used fist in regard to the safety of those around the person. My only caveat is that those people are not the sole types of individuals who would own such a weapon. On the other hand, there are equally irresponsible and dangerous individuals who have massive collections of other weapons, so the ratio may not be skewed compared to other implements of death. In the case of guns, though, I tend to adhere to the "with great power comes great responsibility" mentality, and firearms are a great deal more powerful than other more common weapons.
Claudia Therese: that is an intersting story (not laughing). A similar situation had me looking into the field of security and protection, but these days it is something I only keep as an option because I've learned so much about it and have connections that could find me work if I need it. You don't have to be an imposing figure, but you do need the ability to remain calm in stressful situations and react well in scenarios where you would normally have a fight or flight response. Some have told me a healthy dose of paranoia is useful, but I cannot believe holding everyone under suspicion is a healthy way to approach such work and would lend itself to the same pitfalls as having armed civilians in a gunman situation for police. Many who enter the armed security field have had military experience behind them, though, so even if you met all of the trust and emotional criteria, you would still face a lot of tough competition for the better paying jobs.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BQT, I'm thinking along the lines of what we do with other controlled substances. You could get a "prescription" for x amount of ammo for a specific purpose. Belonging to a shooting club, etc. for example. Having a hunting license. Once you have used that, you could get more. I don't know enough to know that could be measured, spent cartridges etc.
Porter, don't you have to purchase the stuff with which to make ammunition?
And frankly, in the face of events like Monday's I am not all that concerned making shooting as sport less convenient.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Lyrhawn, I'm not against restricting gun use in the same manner as a driver's license. I think requiring a gun license wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I'm skeptical on some of the details people would want on the gunner's test, though... like the suggestion of a psych exam. Ew. But in general, no I don't see it as a problem. Even considering the constitutional right to bear arms.
I agree with Penn & Teller, in that the 2nd amendment is more about protecting ourselves from a government that must be overthrown. However, if we ever really need to overthrow the government, as has been pointed out before, I suspect we wouldn't have difficulty arming ourselves illegally. Since the government would be defunct by such a point anyway, I don't expect too many people being charged after the revolution.
My point was more that I doubt such a license would really prevent criminal acts with guns. The same way I don't think the driver's license requirement prevents many criminal acts with vehicles.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a licensing process that includes safety training, a mandated level of weapon proficiency, and maintenance/usage training would help considerably.
For one thing, accidental deaths by firearms should be reduced by standardized safety and maintenance training required to be learned prior to purchase.
Also, the safety training may make gun owners less likely to lend weapons to those who may commit crimes, or to keep their weapons in a place where they can be easily "borrowed" by malicious or simply irresponsible others.
Proficiency training is just common sense - in that, if for some reason you need to draw your weapon, you better be able to hit your target and not innocent bystanders. If someone can't drive without running up on the sidewalk, they don't deserve a license, as a parallel example.
On top of this, having to take safety/proficiency/maintenance classes with trained (state/local sponsored?) professionals would allow those instructors to spot potential problems before they happen.
Of course, criminals will bypass all of this, and get their weapons illegally, if they really wanted them. As was said earlier, there are many people who drive cars with no license or insurance. I've never claimed that a licensing process would stop all gun crime - but I think it could help cut back on gun deaths and make for a more responsible community of gun owners.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
The second amendment, for purposes of overthrowing the government, it a moot point in the 21st century. If the government were SERIOUS about stopping the citizenry, and the army followed, we'd never stand a chance. Our only advantage would be the ones the founders envisioned us having, which is sheer numbers.
On another note, if anyone really wants to talk to a cop, well I can't produce a cop, but I do have a friend who works at the police station where I live, and she's also in school to be a cop. If you have any questions I could email them to her and have her pass them along to any number of cops she works with. I don't think she'd mind too much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of the problems with gun control is one of the same issues with abortion -- there's a segment of the population which wants to ban guns completely, which makes slipperly slope reasoning much more plausible. When somebody wants to completely take away a "right", every potential limitation on that right becomes an important battleground.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are too many people in the "Guns cause all the evils of the world" camp and too many people in the "I have the right to vaporize a deer with a howitzer" camp.
Those two groups will not come to a common ground. They are vocal minorities at the poles of the issue, and should be ignored almost as a rule. If the polarizing voices could be shut out of the debate, some progress might actually be made.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ill be honest, growing up in Hong Kong where guns are only in the hands of the police and a handful of Triad folks (Who really do not do much with them) gave me a real sense of security.
But Hong Kong is a city, and the USA is almost the size of some continents. I really do not think it is possible, perhaps even unwise to disarm the general populace.
I personally favor one of two options,
1: Stronger limitations on who may own an handgun, including mandatory classes and written/active tests to demonstrate competency and judgment. Much like how we require people to do the same thing for a drivers license.
2: Disarm the general population as difficult as that is, state by state. Give every state, based on population, armories that the civilian sector can practice in, as well as have access to in a crisis situation. Police forces or national guard would protect the armories. I do not think it would be too hard to gain access to the weapons in case of a government turning tyrannical.
I only feel confident in option one however.
Also I think the 2nd Amendment was written when weapons resembling the incredible yet terrible firearms we use today existed. I believe they called them muskets. You could not really go on a shooting spree by yourself with one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how I feel about local armories. Hell, I think I actually argued FOR that in a thread a year ago, but that makes me very wary. If we were ever attacked by a foreign power, one airdropped platoon could stop a local militia from having access to their weapons. Putting all your eggs in one basket has been a mistake we've known about since Sun Tzu.
And they had rifles during the writing of the Constitution in addition to muskets, but they were expensive and in short supply. Rifles didn't really appear in large numbers until the Civil War, and even then many of the rank and file were still using muskets. Many soldiers brought rifles with them from home, mostly the soldiers who came from western states (western at the time meaning anything in line with Kentucky), because they were just plain better than muskets.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage.
quote: Writing in Friday's edition of the New York Post, Lott reported on last week's shooting at Appalachian School of Law. Nigerian student Peter Odighizuwa is accused of killing the dean, L. Anthony Sutin, 42 – a former acting assistant U.S. attorney general and campaign worker for Bill Clinton – professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and student Angela Denise Dales, 33.
Noting that the rampage was widely covered in the world's media, Lott wrote: "As usual, there were calls for more gun control.
"Yet in this age of 'gun-free school zones,' the vast majority of news reports ignored the fact that the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars. The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.
quote: Such selective reporting is not unusual, Lott noted. "In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than 1 percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks."
Wall of Silence
Lott cited research showing there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. "After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?"
Such "misreporting actually endangers people's lives," Lott concluded. "By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely 'overpowered a gunman' the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.
posted
The article above appears to be ultra-biased. It is mostly just quoting the viewpoint of one pro-gun scholar (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") and offers no quotes or other viewpoints from anyone with an alternative perspective. It also refers to the Washington Post as "liberal, anti-gun" and to the New York Times as "leftist, anti-gun" as if these were given facts. As a result, I am skeptical that it is presenting a clear picture.
Having said that, I have no doubt there are instances where civilian gun ownership turned out to be effective in stopping crime. Nevertheless, I suspect the harm caused by guns outweighs those cases.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Thank you.) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
("Guns don't kill people. People kill people. More specifically, MEN kill people...") *snort*
