studioshinnyo > War Against Reality
http://war.studioshinnyo.com/warforum/

Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
http://war.studioshinnyo.com/warforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3256		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Michael J Doyle [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
Some college students think so: Empty Holster protest on-campus

I'm not wildly enthused about the proposition (mostly b/c I consider the majority of the states' CCW training requirements to be inadequate to the task - but my answer to that is to expand and improve the training syllabus), but I remember the comment Massad Ayoob had about the hooraw over the Armed Pilots Program:
Massad Ayoob wrote:
"A pilot with a gun could make things worse?" How could things on the four airliners hijacked and used to murder three thousand people on September 11th possibly have been worse if a pilot had had the wherewithal to stop the bastards?


Same question: "How could things at Virginia Tech possibly been worse if a responsible student or teacher had had the wherewithal to stop the bastard?"
Author:  Christopher Fiss [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
I vote "Depends on how proper the licence is" mainly because I'm solidly convinced that if you give guns to the vigilante mob, things WILL get worse, especially in a school environment; but they ARE just tools and the intent can definitely be a good one.

Problem: Overreaction in an immature environment. Even university/technical school/college is not the bastion of mature thought parents sometimes make it out to be. You generally have a bunch of post High School people tasting "freedom" for the first time. Giving the whack of them guns is retarded. You'll see people drawing when Girl and Boy break up, or during the numerous intense emotion times such as heavy drinking, failing classes, or parents aren't happy with my grades.

Solution: Make a mental evaluation part of a campus-level concealed arms permit. Make sure the person, teacher/student or whatever, can handle the responsible HIDDEN use of a gun, and understands the purpose of the weapon if an emergency occurs. All this...and make sure they can handle the gun as well as any concealed arms permit normally does.

In a perfect world, even running them through some simulations would be awesome...but I suppose that's a bit too much. :P
Author:  Anony-mouse [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
Michael J Doyle wrote:
Massad Ayoob wrote:
"A pilot with a gun could make things worse?" How could things on the four airliners hijacked and used to murder three thousand people on September 11th possibly have been worse if a pilot had had the wherewithal to stop the bastards?


Same question: "How could things at Virginia Tech possibly been worse if a responsible student or teacher had had the wherewithal to stop the bastard?"


1) I'd like to point out that the unarmed passengers stopped one of the hijackings on 9-11, without any of them being armed.

2) More gunfire from amateur shooters in a crowded room during a panicky moment? I have no idea how such a thing could ever turn out bad.
Author:  Michael J Doyle [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gun-Free Zone = Victim-Rich Environment?
Anony-mouse wrote:
1) I'd like to point out that the unarmed passengers stopped one of the hijackings on 9-11, without any of them being armed.
And, in return, I'd like to point out that the unarmed passengers and crew could NOT stop THREE of the hijackings on 9-11. Furthermore, a smoking hole in a field outside Shanksville, PA is still not what I'd call a clear-cut win, although I am suitably grateful that the Capitol building is not a smoking hole in the ground.

Quote:
2) More gunfire from amateur shooters in a crowded room during a panicky moment? I have no idea how such a thing could ever turn out bad.
Define "bad". For purposes of discussion, nutjob opens fire, kills two-three before 'amateur shooter" (licensed teacher/student) clears leather, possible two-to-three stray rounds before he puts the nutjob down. Three-to-four dead, one-to-two wounded. Still not what I'd call a clear-cut win, but..

Consider the alternative. NO amateur shooters, thirty-two dead, seventeen wounded - not counting nutjob committing suicide. Nope, nothing bad about THAT, compared to the idea of an amateur screwing up, is there?
Author:  Christopher Fiss [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Michael J Doyle wrote:
Consider the alternative. NO amateur shooters, thirty-two dead, seventeen wounded - not counting nutjob committing suicide. Nope, nothing bad about THAT, compared to the idea of an amateur screwing up, is there?


It's not the "what would happen when everything is going to hell and bullets are flying" situation that I'd be worried about having amateurs with guns in.

It's the other 364 days of the year where having amateurs with guns would NOT be a benefit that worries me.

This is the problem with the "should citizens be armed" debate: The "Yes" pile is full of excellent examples where people take action and save the day...nobody is questioning that part. However...Normally, you don't NEED to be armed, and having the capacity for a life threatening accident, overreaction, or needless escalation of a confrontation end up on the "No" pile.

This is why training and skill are vital so we don't have a bunch of amateurs running around with guns...we have a bunch of responsible citizens concerned for public safety running around with guns.
Author:  Michael J Doyle [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Christopher Fiss wrote:
It's not the "what would happen when everything is going to hell and bullets are flying" situation that I'd be worried about having amateurs with guns in.

It's the other 364 days of the year where having amateurs with guns would NOT be a benefit that worries me.

This is the problem with the "should citizens be armed" debate: The "Yes" pile is full of excellent examples where people take action and save the day...nobody is questioning that part.
Actually, SC just did.
Quote:
However...Normally, you don't NEED to be armed, and having the capacity for a life threatening accident, overreaction, or needless escalation of a confrontation end up on the "No" pile.

This is why training and skill are vital so we don't have a bunch of amateurs running around with guns...we have a bunch of responsible citizens concerned for public safety running around with guns.
Agreed, hence my lack of wild enthusiasm and my "Maybe" vote.

Normally, you don't need to be armed. The drawback to that is there's no means of predicting the day you will need to be armed.

No screening process is going to catch all the nutters (vide the young sheriff's deputy in Wisconsin who took out his ex-girlfriend and the rest of her party with his issue AR-15) but, in an effort to weed out the grossly unsuitable, I'd prefer to make the requirements at least as stringent as the Armed Pilots program I referred to in the OP. I'd settle for a licensing process that's at least somewhat more rigorous on training than many states have at present. It'd be costly, tedious, and exasperating, particularly for the would-be license holders, and, I rather expect, for the ostriches in academia, as well...

It still beats the hell out of the alternative.
Author:  -B- [ Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
On that note, I'm still rather astonished at how easy it is to get a basic drivers license.

On *that* note, cars are a hell of a lot more lethal than guns.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/