School Shooting in Tusby, Finland

[Zerzera]

About your rant. I'm basically advocating putting some stopping power into the hands of good Samaritans.

Haven't you seen Con Air!?? I SAID NO GUN ON THE PLANE!

[freddie]

Haven't you seen Con Air!?? I SAID NO GUN ON THE PLANE!

What about the motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking plane?

[Squeezer]

What about the motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking plane?

ez

[genocidal]

wat this thred needs rlry

plz 4 want more of opinioiyns on guns !!!!

[DankNuggets]

Conceal & Carry -- Extremely limited in the places you CANT carry guns. For example SCHOOLS.

Even if some of the people had the license, they wouldn't be allowed to carry the guns there. You can't take them into public buildings like schools, though you can take them into grocery stores and such.

And in addition to taking several classes and background checks, you have to pass a proficiency exam in which you have to have a certain accuracy with your firearm. The idea that there would be people with concealed weapons that couldn't aim them is pretty far off when you take into consideration the requirements to get the license.

But in that respect, the permit will only help the person with the gun, assuming he's not the initial victim. It won't help the other victims, because as you've said, the assailant won't target the people with guns, he'll target those without.

I'm in favor of the concealed permit laws because they make sure that people who are licensed are worthy of it. However, for every person that has the permit, there are probably 5-10 others who carry concealed pistols illegally.

It's in the mindset of the killer. There will always be sick fucks who do shit like this, it's just that technology and crowding give them the ability to carry their sick shit out on a level that's become disgusting to the rest of us. Twenty years ago, instead of going on a school shooting spree, this kid probably would've gone on a cat drowning spree, or something like it. It's just that these events escalate in severity as time goes on.

[Ayano]

And? How does someone else with a gun change these things, other than escalate an already terrible situation? There's absolutely NO guarantee that even if someone else was armed, that it would end any better. Absolutely none.

Not having a gun doesn't mean that good Samaritans can't step up to the plate. They can, and have done so in the past.

So you'd agree that "Tighter gun control will do nothing to prevent the would be criminal from obtaining firearms, it just makes their victims more vulnerable" is a made-up statistic? That no one's ever actually validated these claims in a scientific fashion? This isn't (dis)proving God--this is something that could actually be tested and verified.

Your issue on the "the prove the statistic" is double pronged. Prove to me that tighter gun control reduces crime rates. These are social issues, and social science can't be gauged accurately by any scientific method. Deja-vu with the Philosophes of the 1600's, arrogant to the point, but enlightened to a degree. I can't prove it as much as you can disprove it.

A law abiding citizen with a firearm has more options available than one who is not. It's very much like a carpenter without a saw; you can tell him to cut wood and he'll find a way, but it may take longer, or be sloppier. Time being the window a killer has, and sloppiness his ability to confront the assailant.

On your comment about escalation, can you without a reasonable doubt deny that a responsible citizen could deescalate such a situation? You just took one side in this matter.

There's a reason why this debate is on going. The main factor at the heart of this is risk. Are you willing to take the risk that a killer may be unobstructed in his spree? Or are you willing to take the risk that that the situation may worsen or improve by the presence of concealed carriers. I'd rather take that risk than to be just another flock of sheep. Presently I carry a 6 1/2 inch combat knife on my belt at all times; thankfully I haven't had to use for it anything other than cutting rope and tangled knots.

[Galleleo]

Your issue on the "the prove the statistic" is double pronged. Prove to me that tighter gun control reduces crime rates. These are social issues, and social science can't be gauged accurately by any scientific method. Deja-vu with the Philosophes of the 1600's, arrogant to the point, but enlightened to a degree. I can't prove it as much as you can disprove it.

There is very strict gun control in the Netherlands, I do not know of any school shooting. There is strict gun control in the UK, I do not know of any school shooting (though true, it is easier for me to miss them there). There is a less strict gun control in the US, school shootings, less strict gun control in Finland, school shootings. This is in no way scientific, but should raise some point.

On the point of gun control, I think most teenagers would not know how to get a gun, I sure as hell don't know where I would get a gun, I am 120% sure most of my friends wouldn't know how to get a gun (1 friend has a dad who is in the military, so I guess he could get one, but maybe not). Now, maybe I am just naive and tons of kids in the Netherlands know exactly where to get their guns from. But I know its a hell of a lot easier than when you are allowed to have a gun from when you are 15.

And the whole concealed shit, that stuff comes out. Everyone will know people in school will be wearing guns. Would I be one of these crazy kids. I would pick a situation in which you have a lot of people in one room with like 1 teacher, maybe 2. Go to that room, shoot the teacher(s), lock the door. And wam bam thank you ma'm.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Your issue on the "the prove the statistic" is double pronged. Prove to me that tighter gun control reduces crime rates. These are social issues, and social science can't be gauged accurately by any scientific method. Deja-vu with the Philosophes of the 1600's, arrogant to the point, but enlightened to a degree. I can't prove it as much as you can disprove it.

I'm also not going around saying "Option A will definitely cause Option B," as is the way you've presented it. And to say that social science can't be measured accurately by any scientific method--that's just complete bullshit. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of social workers/researchers out of a job by default--why try to measure something that's unmeasurable?

A law abiding citizen with a firearm has more options available than one who is not.

They do NOT, however, give "law abiding" citizens "bad guy-seeking" bullets. I wish they did, but they don't exist. More bullets=a greater chance for stray hits, just purely by raw statistics. More bullets in the air equals a greater chance someone will get hit by a bullet. By raw definition, yes a person with a firearm has an aggregate "more" options (by 1, maybe 2 at the most), but are they the best options to have? Not by a long shot.

It's very much like a carpenter without a saw; you can tell him to cut wood and he'll find a way, but it may take longer, or be sloppier. Time being the window a killer has, and sloppiness his ability to confront the assailant.

I'm sorry, this just doesn't make any sense.

On your comment about escalation, can you without a reasonable doubt deny that a responsible citizen could deescalate such a situation? You just took one side in this matter.

Introducing more weapons into ANY situation automatically escalates a situation, yes. Your "side," to be correct, would have the "samaritan shooter" firing exactly once (and only once), killing the target instantly. Anything outside of that is indeed an escalation. You're saying that all concealed weapons carriers are now also expert marksmen? I have no doubt that a lot of people who apply for the license are also good shots, but I can't believe it's going to be 100% accurate, ALL the time.

There's a reason why this debate is on going. The main factor at the heart of this is risk. Are you willing to take the risk that a killer may be unobstructed in his spree? Or are you willing to take the risk that that the situation may worsen or improve by the presence of concealed carriers.

True. But I've got the choice between "bad", and "a little better or much worse"? I think I'd take "bad" over the possibility of "much worse" almost every time.

I'd rather take that risk than to be just another flock of sheep.

You lost me here. My stance isn't about following a fad (since when was rationality a fad?), it's about saying that the Wild West is over and done with. It's about saying that schools are places for expanding your patterns of thought, not about worrying if the guy next to you has a gun and whether or not you could drop him at 12 paces. It may be a little idealistic, but it's definitely not crazy.

Presently I carry a 6 1/2 inch combat knife on my belt at all times; thankfully I haven't had to use for it anything other than cutting rope and tangled knots.

I think comparing knives and guns is akin to apples and oranges. As I've said before, I'd be okay with someone carrying around a sword--you can't exactly go on an unchecked killing spree with an edged blade (nor is there going to be nearly the possible collateral damage of two people slugging it out with knives). Would I walk around with a knife like yours? No, I think it's kind of silly, but I'm not going to tell you that you can't. (Although I'm totally the guy who quietly refers to you as "Mick Dundee" to my friends.)

[Jerome Scuggs]

Please explain this again then. There is no proof of a civilization without a government, and I know that your perfect world isn't without a government. But what should be governed and what not then?

Good question and here's where we split hairs. I will gladly concede the fact that there has never been a civilization without government - yet there are multiple instances of societies without a centralized state apparatus. Try to solve the seeming contradiction and you'll see that the nation-state is not an inherent source of law and that alternatives exist.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm also not going around saying "Option A will definitely cause Option B," as is the way you've presented it. And to say that social science can't be measured accurately by any scientific method--that's just complete bullshit. Otherwise, you'd have a lot of social workers/researchers out of a job by default--why try to measure something that's unmeasurable?

http://www.gunowners.org/op0746.htm

I think there's enough mitigating causality to make a case that gun regulation is more of a burden than anything.

[Ayano]

And to say that social science can't be measured accurately by any scientific method--that's just complete bullshit.
So you you believe everything your psychologist says? Or believe those 'psychological evaluations' of you are absolutely correct?


You're saying that all concealed weapons carriers are now also expert marksmen? I have no doubt that a lot of people who apply for the license are also good shots, but I can't believe it's going to be 100% accurate, ALL the time.
I never said they were expert marksman, but the mere presence of an armed samaritan will change the tactics of the shooter. For instance, if you were some deranged school shooter and you're randomly firing at a group of of students trapped in a room; if you're confronted by another armed individual, you will focus your attention on him. It can reduce casualties by replacing a killing spree with a focused gun fight limiting the killers scope of devastation. A good example of this is Charles Whitman when he was pinned down by students with hunting rifles until police arrived.

it's about saying that the Wild West is over and done with. 12 paces. It may be a little idealistic, but it's definitely not crazy.
So all those evaluations, background, and marksman checks and tests are equivalent to the wild west era or gun'tooten cowboys? Not everyone who applies for a concealed license gets one.

Like I said, the main issue is risk here.

[Displaced]

no school shootings in the netherlands eh galle?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3394831.stm

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

And to say that social science can't be measured accurately by any scientific method--that's just complete bullshit.

Hell yeah I said this. Let's come back to it in a bit.

So you you believe everything your psychologist says? Or believe those 'psychological evaluations' of you are absolutely correct?

Psychology isn't sociology, but you'd probably call that splitting hairs (you'd be wrong). But again, we'll get back to the "scientific method is stupid and innacurate" argument.

I never said they were expert marksman, but the mere presence of an armed samaritan will change the tactics of the shooter. For instance, if you were some deranged school shooter and you're randomly firing at a group of of students trapped in a room; if you're confronted by another armed individual, you will focus your attention on him. It can reduce casualties by replacing a killing spree with a focused gun fight limiting the killers scope of devastation. A good example of this is Charles Whitman when he was pinned down by students with hunting rifles until police arrived.

Even a "focused gunfight" has projectiles that aren't completely controlled. Once a bullet leaves a gun, the shooter has absolutely no control over its path. This isn't that shitty Angelina Jolie movie, nor will it ever be. Even if it's just two people shooting directly at each other (especially if you're talking about a classroom situation), there's a good chance that there's more than just air and furniture between the two.

Not to mention the fact that you're using data from old shooters to predict the pattern of future shooters. You wanna know what that's called? SOCIOLOGY. If it's "junk science," then you shouldn't be so comfortable citing it.

So all those evaluations, background, and marksman checks and tests are equivalent to the wild west era or gun'tooten cowboys? Not everyone who applies for a concealed license gets one.

I never said they did. What I AM saying is that more people with guns in ANY situation complicates things. Again, I'm not confident enough in the majority in this country to completely trust everyone having a concealed weapon.

I'm gonna read that link, Jerome, but I have to go move some furniture--I'll hit you up tomorrow.

[Ayano]

Psychology isn't sociology, but you'd probably call that splitting hairs (you'd be wrong). But again, we'll get back to the "scientific method is stupid and innacurate" argument.
When was that even an argument, I said social science is inaccurate and cannot be relied on as concrete. (pun)

Even a "focused gunfight" has projectiles that aren't completely controlled. Once a bullet leaves a gun, the shooter has absolutely no control over its path. This isn't that shitty Angelina Jolie movie, nor will it ever be. Even if it's just two people shooting directly at each other (especially if you're talking about a classroom situation), there's a good chance that there's more than just air and furniture between the two.
I brought forward the worst case scenario, a concealed carrier is more likey than not to use intimidation, or will fire before making his presence known to the shooter, insuring a higher degree of accuracy.


Not to mention the fact that you're using data from old shooters to predict the pattern of future shooters. You wanna know what that's called? SOCIOLOGY. If it's "junk science," then you shouldn't be so comfortable citing it.
That's the double edge of it, I treated it within the margin of error, you're playing out everything as fact. There's a difference.

This debate is getting old fast...

[Jerome Scuggs]

I'm gonna read that link, Jerome, but I have to go move some furniture--I'll hit you up tomorrow.

It's nothing particularly salient to the more layered structures of the argument taking place, but it aggregates a bunch of different statistics to basically show that guns in of themselves aren't as significant to the problem as gun control advocates would assert. The authors falls victim to the same mistake though, he later talks about countries with high gun ownership rates that also have low gun-related murder rates.

I just got done reading an interesting piece on Sweden. It's not particularly relevant to the issue at hand, but I think it's something to chew on. The author makes the claim that the Swedish welfare system (which was born out of a tide of radicalism in the 60's/70's) has created a sense of 'atomization' - which many people claim is a result of free-market individualism. The Swedish welfare state has, in its effort to replace private welfare/charity, destroyed the 'traditional' institutions like marriage, religion, et cetera - institutions that, historically, have fostered much of the human cooperation and interaction that drives society. In essence, people in Sweden are now free to literally pursue and do whatever they want - after the taxes are taken, of course - because the Swedish government more or less funds such anti-social behavior. The author sees a major example of this in the rates of un-married mothers - 40%, a percentage usually seen in poor American inner-city areas.

Now I could be jumping the gun, but when I keep that in mind, this becomes a bit more sobering: