<p>
</p>
<p>For the record, ff, a plurality of witnesses report that the gunman was actually tackled to the ground and subdued before either of the students bearing firearms even arrived.</p>
<p>1of42, lets say that things played out as you suggest and the witnesses who say that the armed students were directly responsible are lying. Does the fact of unarmed students tackling an armed gunman support or not support the notion that such acts of heroism are “adolescent fantasies”. If unarmed students were to take on a gunman, then certainly there is more lilklihood of individuals with guns being willing to stop a murder spree.</p>
<p>Icarus and Fundingfather - check again. The Appalachian Law School shooter was apprehended by two unarmed men. True, two other guys (off-duty police officers) left the scene to get their guns, and they claimed afterwards that the shooter surrendered in response to their heroics - but the other witnesses on site never saw them before the guy (whose gun was empty by that time) was already tackled and subdued. But hey - why let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy?
</p>
<p>
That’s a huge leap, ninja. Officers are screened,trained, and experienced. I’m a civilian. You’re a civilian. Maybe the main difference between us is that I don’t overestimate my competence?</p>
<p>“But hey - why let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy?”</p>
<p>I would say that there are contradicting “facts” so lets go with your “facts” and then answer my question above. Adolescent hero fantasy indeed.</p>
<p>Why adolescent fantasy? The best you guys (and all of your gun-lovin’ blogs) can come up with in the past seven years are two cases (both involving off-duty cops) - one of which turns out to be bogus. Your explanation? It’s a media conspiracy to deprive people of information about all the times good guys with guns have prevented bad guys from committing crimes.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah. In this “If it bleeds it leads” media-circus world, somehow “the powers that be” have managed to squelch all reportage of the millions of times a year (*actual gun-nut belief) the guys in the white hats have prevented crimes by the guys in the black hats. Is it an NRA membership requirement that you check your common sense at the door? How about this for a dose of harsh reality: You’re not reading about all those heroic gun hero exploits because they’re not really happening.</p>
<p>The primary difference is that you don’t spend much time at the range building that competence. Officers are trained but so are civilians. My state requires a number of classes and a series of tests before granting a concealed carry permit. Background checks are rigorous. I don’t quite grasp the practical differences between an off-duty cop without body armor and a civilian in that situation. The cop never actually hit the suspect so it seems like a civilian returning fire would have had a similar effect, even if he or she missed. As for experience, I don’t believe many cops or civilians have been involved in mass shootings.</p>
<p>I do appreciate the differences in training for those particular instances, if the officer had indeed been trained to deal with mass shootings, a training usually given to SWAT teams. An armed civilian has a much better chance of intercepting a gunman than an unarmed civilian.</p>
<p>As for screening cops…[Homecoming</a> Pizza Party Hit By Murder Spree, Police: Off-Duty Officer Killed Six, Before Being Shot To Death; Wisconsin Town In Shock - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/07/national/main3340055.shtml?source=mostpop_story]Homecoming”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/07/national/main3340055.shtml?source=mostpop_story)</p>
<p>Kluge, please explain to me with details how a civilian would have a detrimental or inferior response to the Utah shooting when compared to the off-duty cop’s. Do you have personal experience with gun training classes and licensing programs?</p>
<p>ff: It doesn’t support or not support them. I was responding to the inaccuracy of your single version of events, which has only ever been espoused by one of the students with guns himself. The witnesses tell a different story. I haven’t fully been paying attention to this thread, and don’t want to get drawn in now. ;)</p>
<p>Ninja - you’re using tunnel vision. That can happen when you know the result you want to get to and ignore everything that doesn’t take you there. My point is this: the fantasy of stopping the bad guy with your trusty six-shooter is deeply ingrained in all of us. We’ve watched it on TV a million times. But out in the real world things aren’t as neat as they are on TV. As a result, the “good guy” scenario is, for the most part, a fantasy. Are there times when a civilian foils a crime? Absolutely. It happens every day. I’ve done it - maybe you, too. But putting a gun in the pocket of every would-be hero won’t increase that number - just as it didn’t affect how things went at the Appalachian Law School. On the other hand, you’ll get a lot more tragedies like the pizza killings you linked to. (And what was your point there, anyway? That we should try to maximize the number of people carrying guns like that cop? Because that is the logical end to your argument.)</p>
<p>This is hardly an authoritative search but it also shows that home defense IS happening at not insignificant intervals. Not happening is a bit of a leap. I can pull up more evidence dating back beyond about 2 weeks if anyone isn’t convinced. My search was limited to burglaries alone, not other crimes.</p>
<p>[Burglar</a> Shot In Clinton Township - Detroit News Story - WDIV Detroit](<a href=“http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14758493/detail.html]Burglar”>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14758493/detail.html)
[WTNH.com</a>, Connecticut News and Weather - Homeowner shoots at burglars](<a href=“http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7461235]WTNH.com”>http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=7461235)
[West</a> Valley Burglar Shot By Homeowner | KIMA CBS 29 - News, Weather and Sports - Yakima, WA - Yakima, Washington 29 | Local & Regional](<a href=“http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/11628621.html]West”>http://www.kimatv.com/news/local/11628621.html)
[Police</a> continue searching for Thrasher Street burglars](<a href=“http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/11/30/sns120107burglary.html]Police”>http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/11/30/sns120107burglary.html)
[Pal</a> blamed because burglars were shot :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Nation](<a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/653342,CST-NWS-break16.article]Pal”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/653342,CST-NWS-break16.article)
[cbs11tv.com</a> - Shooting Sends Man To Hospital](<a href=“http://cbs11tv.com/local/Dallas.homeowner.shoots.2.591742.html]cbs11tv.com”>http://cbs11tv.com/local/Dallas.homeowner.shoots.2.591742.html)</p>
<p>The point of pizza shooting is that screening procedures for police are not constantly effective. If you assert that police are not vulnerable to the same emotional instability and bad decision making as civilians, as you have, then there is considerable evidence (of which that is one piece) to counter that argument. We cannot rely on the police for our personal protection. If mass murderers are suicidal and willing to commit capital murder, is a sign with a line through a gun on a mall window going to be a deterrent, no. It should the right of a civilian to carry a gun in his or her pocket to ensure that protection in all locations except schools. The reason the Appalachian shooting ended like it did was because the gunman didn’t carry extra ammunition. Had he carried that ammo, an armed response would have been necessary.</p>
<p>Please address my earlier question about the PRACTICAL intervention of a civilian differing from that of an off-duty police officer.</p>
<p>The reason there are so few interventions is because these gunmen typically choose gun-free zones to commit their crimes, schools and malls being two examples. A law-abiding citizen must leave his or her firearm in their car (or in my mall’s case, at home). If you disarm the populace in these locations where these shootings take place, an armed intervention is not going to occur.</p>
<p>Ninja.of.love, the reason I didn’t answer your question is because you have used the usual zealot’s tactic of positing an ideal scenario and then demanding that it be referenced to the real world, rather than addressing what is actually happening in the real world in real life. </p>
<p>You argue that the fact that a police officer was inadequately screened and trained, resulting in mass deaths, supports the premise that more people - with no more screening and training than that cop - should be packing heat. Does that even make sense to you?</p>
<p>As to your gun totin’ homeowners - other than the ability to shoot two burglars in the back and kill them, as in the California case - did the presence of a gun actually make a difference? I have foiled a robbery - unarmed. In college my girlfriend foiled a burglary - unarmed. Lots of crimes are foiled by civilians, all the time. Sometimes they have guns - the question is, how much of a difference does the gun make? And is the cost of widespread gun possession - as in the case of the pizza party and countless other gun killings, intentional, accidental, homicidal, suicidal, etc. each month - offset by the number of times a crime is foiled by a civilian with a gun - when it would not have been foiled anyway?</p>
<p>That’s the kind of analysis that is needed in addressing this kind of a question - not what one hypothetical individual might have done in a single instance. I know you’d rather focus on a single hero-event and picture yourself with the white hat and the six-gun. And you won’t want to admit the possibility that you might get depressed, or drunk, or careless, or stupid - or just confused, like the homeowner who killed the Japanese tourist near Baton Rouge on Halloween some years back. But all of those events are actually a lot more likely than that you would find yourself, calm, sober, alert, and correctly assessing the situation during a chaotic mall shooting incident, and succeed in saving the day. </p>
<p>It’s not what you’d prefer to think about - it’s the real world that needs to be addressed.</p>
<p>Well, if having firearms is a fantasy (note how we’re back to trying to diminish the other side of the discussion by insult) it seems Congress and a majority of the states agree with the notion it is more than fantasy. </p>
<p>For example, the retired federal LEO carry act and the multiple concealed carry acts by the various states. </p>
<p>See: [Image:Rtc.gif</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif]Image:Rtc.gif”>File:Right to Carry, timeline.gif - Wikipedia)</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif]Image:Rtc.gif](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rtc.gif%5DImage:Rtc.gif){kind=link}
<p>At the risk of taking all of the fun out of the discussion by bringing rationality to the question, I’ll return to the puerile argument advanced a couple of pages back that since more people die in auto accidents than by guns, we should ban cars, not guns.</p>
<p>It’s true - you’re 50 times more likely to die in a car accident than by being shot (by a good guy or a bad guy.) But, for every person who dies in an auto accident, Americans will have been transported 77 million miles. </p>
<p>77 million miles. Commutes. Mail deliveries. Carpooling the kids to school. Driving to the movies. The risk of driving is real - and we have done and continue to do everything that we can to reduce it. But the fact is that there is a huge benefit to us as a society to have the mobility which is represented by driving cars. But there’s a price - one life for every 77m million miles traveled. [A</a> COMPARISON OF RISK](<a href=“http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm]A”>http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm) </p>
<p>In comparison - what do we get in exchange for every person killed by gunfire? That’s the question. I understand why the gun nuts have to believe that there are crimes being foiled by good guys every day that would otherwise have succeeded - that would be a justification for the carnage. It’s just that I actually don’t know a single person who has prevented a crime with the assistance of a gun. Not one. And I not only know of but have been present for the prevention of serious crimes. That’s why I find the Kleck and Gertz “studies” - and the howlingly funny explanations for their divergence from provable reality - so interesting. </p>
<p>And it’s why I won’t back down from calling a spade a spade - gun nuts’ insistence that they would foil crime with their guns if they were just allowed to do so - is an adolescent fantasy. They’re more likely to get wasted and blow away their spouse, or get depressed and eat their own gun, or forget to lock it up, allowing their kid to accidentally shoot his best friend, than they are to prevent a crime which otherwise would have succeeded. But that’s not so fun to think about, is it?</p>
<p>Please do not try to fit me into the stereotype. I’m an 18-year-old high schooler who does not own a firearm and I do not appreciate your presupposing some mental fantasy onto me. I think it’s also rude to deflect a reasonable question to your argument (that civilians cannot respond to an armed person in a comparable way as an off-duty cop) by saying that I’m a zealot. We must deal with this situation in hypotheticals because of gun-free zones. If you would like to look at a real example, consider the earlier school shooting that was stopped by an assistant principal with a handgun.</p>
<p>You did not grasp my response about why the Wisconsin murders support greater armament of the population. Many horrible acts are not prevented by screening. No gun screening program will prevent all of these actions, so it is not reasonable to remove the right of the legal gun owners to carry firearms, and in doing so place their personal safety, at least theoretically, in danger.</p>
<p>Firearms facilitate more effective home defense. Sean Taylor, a professional athlete, attempted to defend his home with a kitchen knife. How’d that go? I don’t deny that you can foil a burglary without a weapon, but bans like the DC one remove a valuable tool from the citizen. Having a firearm does not prevent you from foiling a crime non-violently. </p>
<p>“The homeowner grabbed a gun and when he walked inside his home he claims the suspects were trying steal his guns. The homeowner said he shot one of the burglars in the arm when he noticed the suspect had a shotgun in hand.” - The Yakima burglary article</p>
<p>You do not know me. You do not know my state of mind. You do not know my tolerance for stress or my training. You cannot generalize and say that I would be more likely to get drunk and careless (I don’t drink) than to protect myself from someone who is armed. </p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that the toothpaste is out of the tube, as the saying goes. Unless you have a plan to bring in the 200+ million guns from the street, I will lobby my legislators to allow me to carry a firearm. I trust myself and I trust the gun owners that I know. As with anything, irresponsibility and carelessness do cause unnecessary death. In 2001 there were 802 accidental deaths due to firearms (CDC report, 2004). By contrast, there were more than 3000 drownings in the United States (2005, sorry). There are issues with gun ownership certainly, but I believe that I am responsible and capable of defending myself, both hand-to-hand (I take classes) and with a firearm.</p>
<p>PS - What we get out of firearms? How’s a multi-billion dollar hunting industry and millions of tax dollars generated? Plus entertainment, personal protection, collecting…</p>
<p>“What we get out of firearms?” In addition to all the things ninja enumerated, we get one of the highest rates of homicide. We will collectively decide if it’s worth it. Debates here are part of deciding.</p>
<p>The whole notion that gun nuts can protect themselves from other gun nuts is almost comical. Actually, it isn’t comical at all…it’s very scary and sad.</p>
<p>As said before, the right is centered around the personal freedoms enjoyed by Americans. You are free not to participate and to criticize this personal right.</p>
<p>It is interesting that this particular right was important enough to list as #2 in our Bill of Rights. Like it or not the issue is now before the Supreme Court which is likely to clarify the personal nature of this right.</p>
<p>While this finding will not stop the debate it will focus the discussion into whether or not Americans will give up a fundamental right. I doubt they ever will and they’ll realize that no right is without human cost. I suspect the vast majority will consciously decide this freedom is worth the cost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So just because you personally don’t know anyone who has defended themselves with a gun, it means it doesn’t happen (or happens rarely)? I personally know several - but we both live in one of the most non-gun friendly states in the union, so you wouldn’t really expect to hear of a CCW holder defending themself with their firearm. </p>
<p>However, all the evidence and statistics point to the idea that gun control and less guns doesn’t prevent crime or deaths. Hell, the CDC even reported that there is no evidence that gun control laws prevent crime.
Not to mention the fact that DC, with its draconian ban that will be overturned, has some of the highest crime rates in the country. At the same time, Florida has experienced an overall drop in crime since passing its CCW law. </p>
<p>I think (and it seems reasonable) that high levels of gun ownership create a preventative measure against criminals. Think about it - criminals (usually) aren’t suicidal, and don’t feel like getting hurt during their crimes. Would you rather go out onto the streets of CA (where a CCW is next to impossible to get) and mug someone, or the streets of Vermont (where you don’t even need a permit to carry a concealed handgun)?? I sure as hell would pick CA.</p>
<p>Nor would I rob a house in Switzerland, where all men of military age (18-45) are required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle in their house. And yet, Switzerland has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
[NationMaster</a> - Swiss Crime statistics](<a href=“http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz-switzerland/cri-crime]NationMaster”>Switzerland Crime Stats: NationMaster.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>+100 well said!</p>
<p>Read it VERY carefully- a MILITIA was very clear</p>
<p>the rest is not</p>
<p>Title X of the US Code</p>
<p>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.</p>
<p>By my understanding of this, all 17-45 year-old men are part of the unorganized militia of the United States. In a state like North Carolina, which does not have a state militia (the Federal National Guard aside), it would be an interesting argument to make, to say that only 17-45 year-old men have the right to keep and bear arms, should the ruling say that membership in the militia is necessary to keep arms.</p>
<p>“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams</p>