Fred T.
-
I agree that for an isolated, but very deadly incident like this one, if one or more other students had been carrying a gun, things could have turned out a lot less tragic. One could also argue that if the killer had been aware that other students could have been armed, it may have deterred him from even planning his crime. Maybe, although it could have also driven him to acquire even more powerful weapons to better ensure his success. The difficult question is: how many accidental shootings or crimes of passion have been prevented because of the school's anti-gun policy? If we could somehow answer that question, and it turned out to be over 32, would you then agree with the school's policy?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
The difficult question is: how many accidental shootings or crimes of passion have been prevented because of the school's anti-gun policy?
You should be able to extrapolate that. There are 800-900[^] accidental gun deaths per year in the US (as of 2001) and 300 million people. Va Tech has about 25,000 students. If students there carried guns with the same prevelance as the population as a whole (and they probably wouldn't since they are more likely to be more liberal and have less discretionary money), we would expect there to be 0.075 accidental deaths/year, or one accidental death every 13 years. It would take 426 years before 32 students were killed. I don't know how to estimate crimes of passion, but my understanding is that those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus. But arbitrarily saying that 25% of gun crimes are "crimes of passion", it would take 153 years before 32 were killed.
-
I agree that for an isolated, but very deadly incident like this one, if one or more other students had been carrying a gun, things could have turned out a lot less tragic. One could also argue that if the killer had been aware that other students could have been armed, it may have deterred him from even planning his crime. Maybe, although it could have also driven him to acquire even more powerful weapons to better ensure his success. The difficult question is: how many accidental shootings or crimes of passion have been prevented because of the school's anti-gun policy? If we could somehow answer that question, and it turned out to be over 32, would you then agree with the school's policy?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
The school's anti-gun policy only deterred the law-abiding. Since Cho was able to keep his weapons in his Dormitory room for quite some time, it is clear there was no serious enforcement of the policy. Laws and policies that are unenforced or unenforceable are worse than pointless, they delude us into a false sense of security.
-
I agree that for an isolated, but very deadly incident like this one, if one or more other students had been carrying a gun, things could have turned out a lot less tragic. One could also argue that if the killer had been aware that other students could have been armed, it may have deterred him from even planning his crime. Maybe, although it could have also driven him to acquire even more powerful weapons to better ensure his success. The difficult question is: how many accidental shootings or crimes of passion have been prevented because of the school's anti-gun policy? If we could somehow answer that question, and it turned out to be over 32, would you then agree with the school's policy?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
would you then agree with the school's policy?
no, sure wouldn't. without that policy in place a thoroughly evil nut job like this guy would have to assume that one or two of his classmates in a lecture hall just might be carrying. The way I see it, if you have a law / rule / whatever that says, "no guns here dude" then law abiding citizens will say, "okay", but a thoroughly eveil nut job will say, "cool!".
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Al Beback wrote:
The difficult question is: how many accidental shootings or crimes of passion have been prevented because of the school's anti-gun policy?
You should be able to extrapolate that. There are 800-900[^] accidental gun deaths per year in the US (as of 2001) and 300 million people. Va Tech has about 25,000 students. If students there carried guns with the same prevelance as the population as a whole (and they probably wouldn't since they are more likely to be more liberal and have less discretionary money), we would expect there to be 0.075 accidental deaths/year, or one accidental death every 13 years. It would take 426 years before 32 students were killed. I don't know how to estimate crimes of passion, but my understanding is that those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus. But arbitrarily saying that 25% of gun crimes are "crimes of passion", it would take 153 years before 32 were killed.
Red Stateler wrote:
those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus
Slight addendum to your statement here. I'm not sure myself about crimes of passion, but "overwhelmingly committed in the home" certainly sounds reasonable for society at large. However, on college campuses you'll have roommate situations (and college-style too, where it is often two random people stuck together), which are rare in society at large but very common on campuses. Anyway, I suspect those situations would be prone to crimes of passion (probably not more than in-home crimes of passion, but more common than in most other setups, I'd imagine). Second, although I doubt accidental gun deaths would be so high as to invalidate any arguments, I'd imagine that Universities could skew slightly high on accidental deaths as well. My guess is that if there is anyone who is prone to not respecting guns and improperly handling them, I'd think it would be college kids (think drunk frat guys at parties). So just guessing, I'll say you're off by a factor of two in accidental gun deaths, and I'll say the same for crimes of passion (although that is REALLY pulled out of the air). So that brings the number down to ~40 years. (A little under one a year, which seems very reasonable at a large campus).
-
Red Stateler wrote:
those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus
Slight addendum to your statement here. I'm not sure myself about crimes of passion, but "overwhelmingly committed in the home" certainly sounds reasonable for society at large. However, on college campuses you'll have roommate situations (and college-style too, where it is often two random people stuck together), which are rare in society at large but very common on campuses. Anyway, I suspect those situations would be prone to crimes of passion (probably not more than in-home crimes of passion, but more common than in most other setups, I'd imagine). Second, although I doubt accidental gun deaths would be so high as to invalidate any arguments, I'd imagine that Universities could skew slightly high on accidental deaths as well. My guess is that if there is anyone who is prone to not respecting guns and improperly handling them, I'd think it would be college kids (think drunk frat guys at parties). So just guessing, I'll say you're off by a factor of two in accidental gun deaths, and I'll say the same for crimes of passion (although that is REALLY pulled out of the air). So that brings the number down to ~40 years. (A little under one a year, which seems very reasonable at a large campus).
Nathan Addy wrote:
So just guessing
Yeah....I'll say. I'll apply my own made-up number. Since college students are poor (and guns are bullets are expensive) and tend to be more liberal, there will likely be far fewer guns when compared to the general population. This figure will therefore be reduced by a factor of two, thus offsetting your increased factor of two. I found that in 2004, about 30%[^] of murders committed were because of an "argument" (which I would classify as a crime of passion). So my arbitary guess of 25% was very close.
-
The school's anti-gun policy only deterred the law-abiding. Since Cho was able to keep his weapons in his Dormitory room for quite some time, it is clear there was no serious enforcement of the policy. Laws and policies that are unenforced or unenforceable are worse than pointless, they delude us into a false sense of security.
Rob Graham wrote:
Laws and policies that are unenforced or unenforceable are worse than pointless, they delude us into a false sense of security.
I agree that enforcement is required as an additional deterrent. I doubt that would have stopped a nutcase like Cho though.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Laws and policies that are unenforced or unenforceable are worse than pointless, they delude us into a false sense of security.
I agree that enforcement is required as an additional deterrent. I doubt that would have stopped a nutcase like Cho though.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
I agree that enforcement is required as an additional deterrent.
How would you do that without violating "privacy"?
-
Al Beback wrote:
The difficult question is: how many accidental shootings or crimes of passion have been prevented because of the school's anti-gun policy?
You should be able to extrapolate that. There are 800-900[^] accidental gun deaths per year in the US (as of 2001) and 300 million people. Va Tech has about 25,000 students. If students there carried guns with the same prevelance as the population as a whole (and they probably wouldn't since they are more likely to be more liberal and have less discretionary money), we would expect there to be 0.075 accidental deaths/year, or one accidental death every 13 years. It would take 426 years before 32 students were killed. I don't know how to estimate crimes of passion, but my understanding is that those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus. But arbitrarily saying that 25% of gun crimes are "crimes of passion", it would take 153 years before 32 were killed.
Red Stateler wrote:
to estimate crimes of passion, but my understanding is that those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus
With students? Barely post-teenagers with raging hormones, shitty judgement, and little perspective? I don't know about that. All I know is that if I were at Virgina Tech that day, I would have wanted to be armed and well-trained in the use of my firearm. *shrug* I can't comment on the whole should there be more guns/should there be less guns thing you guys have going on down there because I don't really understand the dynamics of your society, and frankly, there's good arguments on all sides. But I wouldn't want my only option in that situation to be playing dead. Pardon my French, but fuck that. I'm currently in the process of being registered to own and use unrestricted firearms (not because of the VT thing, but for backcountry protection against bears in northern BC). Frankly, I'm more likely to come across a bear than I am a handgun anyway. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing :).
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Al Beback wrote:
would you then agree with the school's policy?
no, sure wouldn't. without that policy in place a thoroughly evil nut job like this guy would have to assume that one or two of his classmates in a lecture hall just might be carrying. The way I see it, if you have a law / rule / whatever that says, "no guns here dude" then law abiding citizens will say, "okay", but a thoroughly eveil nut job will say, "cool!".
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
to estimate crimes of passion, but my understanding is that those are overwhelmingly committed in the home and would therefore be negligable on campus
With students? Barely post-teenagers with raging hormones, shitty judgement, and little perspective? I don't know about that. All I know is that if I were at Virgina Tech that day, I would have wanted to be armed and well-trained in the use of my firearm. *shrug* I can't comment on the whole should there be more guns/should there be less guns thing you guys have going on down there because I don't really understand the dynamics of your society, and frankly, there's good arguments on all sides. But I wouldn't want my only option in that situation to be playing dead. Pardon my French, but fuck that. I'm currently in the process of being registered to own and use unrestricted firearms (not because of the VT thing, but for backcountry protection against bears in northern BC). Frankly, I'm more likely to come across a bear than I am a handgun anyway. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing :).
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs wrote:
With students? Barely post-teenagers with raging hormones, shitty judgement, and little perspective? I don't know about that.
I wonder if there are any studies on the topic, since a university is a very different environment than the "real world", or if there are any larger universities that allow concealed weapons that track those numbers. Of course, you can further adjust it by age[^]. About a third of murders are committed by those in the college-age group (being disproportionately high).
-
opinion on gun free zones[^] - quite possibly the next GOP POTUS candidate.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Gun policies aside, I've always seen advertising areas as gun-free zones as like walking around in D.C. advertising yourself as unarmed and carrying cash. It has to be one of the most remarkably stupid "safety initiatives" in human history.
-
Al Beback wrote:
I agree that enforcement is required as an additional deterrent.
How would you do that without violating "privacy"?
Red Stateler wrote:
How would you do that without violating "privacy"?
I was pondering the same thing, and the only thing that came to mind is doing what many federal buildings do: have an X-ray machine at every doorway, along with a couple of cops, 24/7. What an expensive hassle! X|
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
opinion on gun free zones[^] - quite possibly the next GOP POTUS candidate.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
I like his views. I was wondering if this incident would further motivate people to speak up against and vote for law makers wanting to ban guns or further restrict their use. However I am seeing evidence to the contrary which is excellent. I'm glad there are people like him to have more sense than those gun grabbers.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
opinion on gun free zones[^] - quite possibly the next GOP POTUS candidate.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Well he certainly is a Law and Order[^] kind of guy
led mike
led mike wrote:
Well he certainly is a Law and Order[^] kind of guy
a new incarnation of RR. His voice alone is worth 5 points in the polls.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
How would you do that without violating "privacy"?
I was pondering the same thing, and the only thing that came to mind is doing what many federal buildings do: have an X-ray machine at every doorway, along with a couple of cops, 24/7. What an expensive hassle! X|
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
I was pondering the same thing, and the only thing that came to mind is doing what many federal buildings do: have an X-ray machine at every doorway, along with a couple of cops, 24/7. What an expensive hassle!
And a police state...
"I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can" - Ignignot
-
Al Beback wrote:
I was pondering the same thing, and the only thing that came to mind is doing what many federal buildings do: have an X-ray machine at every doorway, along with a couple of cops, 24/7. What an expensive hassle!
And a police state...
"I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can" - Ignignot
If you want to play with fire, surely it is best to have a fire marshall nearby?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milk -
If you want to play with fire, surely it is best to have a fire marshall nearby?
Ðavid Wulff What kind of music should programmers listen to?
Join the Code Project Last.fm group | dwulff
I'm so gangsta I eat cereal without the milkDavid Wulff wrote:
If you want to play with fire, surely it is best to have a fire marshall nearby?
Nearby is fine. If he wants to setup residence in the doorway, he damn well better bring some chips and a six-pack. And take a walk between 8 and 9 - that's me time.
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
So just guessing
Yeah....I'll say. I'll apply my own made-up number. Since college students are poor (and guns are bullets are expensive) and tend to be more liberal, there will likely be far fewer guns when compared to the general population. This figure will therefore be reduced by a factor of two, thus offsetting your increased factor of two. I found that in 2004, about 30%[^] of murders committed were because of an "argument" (which I would classify as a crime of passion). So my arbitary guess of 25% was very close.
You recently stated that gun ownership per capita is down over the past five decades. The number of homes with a gun has decreased from 50% of homes to 35%. The link you provided here shows homicides dropped almost 50% from their peak in 1991, at the same time as gun ownership was also falling, thus proving that less guns equals less murders and a safer America. Good on ya, mate.
-
opinion on gun free zones[^] - quite possibly the next GOP POTUS candidate.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Yeh I am against gun control. The founding fathers had a good reason for the 2nd amendment - they spelled it out really well. I don't know why people have such trouble reading these days.
A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
-H.L. Mencken