Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Exactly.

Students are expected to have one hand on their pen and the other on their gun at all times. These would-be assailants should be very afraid. Not.

I think this is totally unfounded. Who has said anything about what would be expected of students? People simply desire to use the rights they have off-campus to defend themselves on campus. I don't keep a gun by my bed for a community-wide deterrent effect. I do it to deter individual criminals who might seek to harm me or my loved ones. I feel the same about carry on campus.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Yes. Add that to your checklist of things you're looking for. Does it have your major? Does it have campus activities? Can you carry your gun to biochem class?

The average private school will certainly not allow students to carry guns on campus. State schools will probably be subject to state laws. However, state legislators know that some of their funding goes down the drain if they lose students, faculty, and staff who do not want a campus filled with gun toting randoms. Cost and benefit analysis says that the average state school will not allow gun toting and those who do allow it will have to make a lot of adjustments to ensure it doesn't fail.

I suspect there are some schools which may buck this trend. I think you're right about the "average" school, but I don't think I can count on the "average" university administrator to make neutral decisions on this matter.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I suspect you may be speaking in generalities, but if there is a specific study you took note of I'd like to know about it. There is also research showing that violence has decreased in areas where gun ownership for purposes of self defense is encouraged. I also highly suspect that there are also other variables in many of these studies which may disqualify them from usefulness in this discussion.

I am speaking in general about the findings of years of research because, again, my point of reference is different than yours. It would be extremely tedious and boring to go study-by-study (and translate certain findings so laypersons can follow) and that's why the gun control debate is rarely supported by research on either side, beyond low-level surveys. Findings can be twisted, which is why this isn't a gun control discussion. This is a discussion of why guns should not be allowed on campuses--and why many students, faculty, and staff are not willing to test whether the pros and cons of gun control are a reality.

Decreases in violence are a combination of factors just as increases are. Refer back to what I said in my other post about gun violence in the 1990's. where my point is that gun access did not reduce violence the way people assumed that it would. Gun violence increased for reasons including but not limited to gun access, however new people became involved because they now had guns that they attempted to use or had guns taken from them (which put more guns on the streets). Law abiding citizens were not going to let people take over their communities and they wanted to both protect themselves and fight back. Well, that made the would-be assailants think of better ways to be better assailants and prepare for wannabe Rambos with guns.

Other variables do not dismiss a studies usefulness. Other variables with effects that are not controlled for provide limitations that reduce the strength of the findings.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're right that this is a circular discussion. I'm not writing because I want to win this argument, I'm responding because I don't want your assertions to go uncontested, considering this is a very popular topic with a lot of people having unformed opinions.

It isn't about winning or losing because this isn't a formal debate. But I don't consider anything you typed to be a challenge to any of my assertions. And the fact still remains that guns will never be allowed on the average campus.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think this is totally unfounded. Who has said anything about what would be expected of students? People simply desire to use the rights they have off-campus to defend themselves on campus. I don't keep a gun by my bed for a community-wide deterrent effect. I do it to deter individual criminals who might seek to harm me or my loved ones. I feel the same about carry on campus.

(I was being sarcastic but anyway)

Gun access without changed expectations. Yeah, this is definitely a theoretical discussion.

Your gun by your bed doesn't deter individual criminals unless you put "I have a gun by my bed" on every window and door. But you are expected to always be aware of where your gun is, know what to do with it, and be prepared to do something with it if need be. Right?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

(I was being sarcastic but anyway)

Gun access without changed expectations. Yeah, this is definitely a theoretical discussion.

Your gun by your bed doesn't deter individual criminals unless you put "I have a gun by my bed" on every window and door. But you are expected to always be aware of where your gun is, know what to do with it, and be prepared to do something with it if need be. Right?

Exactly. So is the average person who legally carries their gun to Wal-Mart. So would the licensed student who conceals his gun when going on campus.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Exactly. So is the average person who legally carries their gun to Wal-Mart. So would the licensed student who conceals his gun when going on campus.

Ok.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I am speaking in general about the findings of years of research because, again, my point of reference is different than yours. It would be extremely tedious and boring to go study-by-study (and translate certain findings so laypersons can follow) and that's why the gun control debate is rarely supported by research on either side, beyond low-level surveys. Findings can be twisted, which is why this isn't a gun control discussion. This is a discussion of why guns should not be allowed on campuses--and why many students, faculty, and staff are not willing to test whether the pros and cons of gun control are a reality.

Decreases in violence are a combination of factors just as increases are. Refer back to what I said in my other post about gun violence in the 1990's. where my point is that gun access did not reduce violence the way people assumed that it would. Gun violence increased for reasons including but not limited to gun access, however new people became involved because they now had guns that they attempted to use or had guns taken from them (which put more guns on the streets). Law abiding citizens were not going to let people take over their communities and they wanted to both protect themselves and fight back. Well, that made the would-be assailants think of better ways to be better assailants and prepare for wannabe Rambos with guns.

Other variables do not dismiss a studies usefulness. Other variables with effects that are not controlled for provide limitations that reduce the strength of the findings.




It isn't about winning or losing because this isn't a formal debate. But I don't consider anything you typed to be a challenge to any of my assertions. And the fact still remains that guns will never be allowed on the average campus.

What I mean is that an inner city study on an increased violence in a bad neighborhood may not have any bearing on what would happen on the average college campus. I meant that other variables could remove the usefulness of application, like the demographics of the area, the training of those involved (untrained people vs. those licensed to carry, etc).

It isn't about winning or losing, you're right. I said that because I didn't want you to interpret my continual responses as beating a dead horse, considering the circular nature of the argument. I just didn't want your assertions to go un-responded to.

[KSig RC]

It will be fascinating to see which happens first: a gun-carrying student shoots a gunman mid-assault and saves lives, or the gun-carrying student fails to stop an assailant/makes a "friendly fire"-type mistake/exacerbates a domestic situation or whatever.

So much of this type of 'debate' is fueled by perception issues and personal beliefs on the utility of firearms. I don't really think allowing students to have "conceal and carry" permits on campuses will have much of an effect at all on the whole (in either direction), but there will certainly be an outcry and explosion of media attention on that very first situation.

If you support weapons on campuses, you'd better damn well hope someone successfully plays hero before someone else screws up in a fatal way - which is kind of a microcosm for why I think this entire conversation is low-yield and kind of silly: I don't have any information that I find credible either way, and hate being in the prognostication business without any background or foundation. I also hate that this is such a media-fueled mess, and that we fail to even investigate some of the core issues of why that's bad.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

I personally wouldn't like to attend a school where concealed weapons are allowed. I just graduated and while the atmosphere at my particular school isn't violent, we already have enough crazy people and/or behavior without guns being allowed on campus. I would honestly take the odds of a random crazy with a gun busting into glass than know that any random person could break out into gunfire at any moment. I guarantee option one will happen a million times less than option two. At least at my particular school. If we allowed guns at school I know people would go bezerk on any given day and have the gun ready to do the deed. I'll take my chances against the one shooter than the thousands that would be packing if allowed.

My heart goes out to the families, no one expects this to happen and those people obviously were not involved in his personal problems. He had no right to ruin so many lives in this way.

[bohdi]

All the attention given to these horrific mass shootings in a way are advertising to the sick and twisted minds out there that the easiest way to make a name for yourself is to select a gun free zone (like a university, K-12 school, public mall, etc.) and it’s open season. Victims are plenty, and are easy prey as they are already disarmed. A murderer can take as much time as they need since they already know they will not initially be faced with any armed resistance what so ever. They also know that while the police may arrive quickly, the police are still going to have to take some time to organize and figure out how and where to respond with force. While it took only two minutes (30 seconds in one report) for the police to respond and be on scene, the rampage was already over in this case. It was said the quicker response was due to lessons learned from VT.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Had the school allowed the faculty, or the students to carry concealed weapons on campus, the numbers could be lower. Notice I didn't say the numbers would be eliminated. A crazed gunperson is probably always going to claim a few vicitms, that cannot be ignored. What I'm talking about is reducing the casualties and deaths by allowing students and faculty the option to carry. This cannot be ignored as was proven in Colorado Springs recently; armed citizens are deterrents and can put an end to a murder spree quickly. The school has a duty to provide security, actual security for the students, not measures to make students “feel” safe. I imagine that’s part of the tuition cost, and if I was a student attending there today I’d feel ripped off. If the administrators cannot guarantee a safe environment for learning then they should allow responsible adults – which last time I checked is the term used for people of age 18 and older in this country, to be armed on campus and off as local/state laws allow. Otherwise the school administration should look no further than them for allowing this to happen. They make the policy, they enforce the policy. People say guns on campus are a bad idea. Look at the lack of gun play at the Univeristy of Utah, where responsible students are allowed to carry. No mass shootings there.

People say allowing students to be armed is a bad idea; they can’t control themselves, and are irresponsible. These statements are unfounded (see U of Utah), and stereotype adults of a wide age range and maturity levels. It’s a form of discrimination. As a responsible gun owner I can meet with my state representatives in Virginia, in the General Assembly building in Richmond, while ARMED, but if I were to enroll at a local university I cannot attend classes armed for my own protection? Tell me that is not discrimination, against my constitutional rights. While a university or college may be private property, and private property owners can request you disarm, they then should be liable for any and all lawsuits that are the result of any damage that happens upon you for not creating a safe environment. How many more of these mass slayings will we have to endure before people wake up and realize that the current policy of disarming students is not working? Perhaps the answer is to take on-line classes. At least that way in my home, I can be armed, attend class, and know for certain that I am “safe”. I don't go around armed because I am "afraid" or so I can save the world. I am interested in saving my family and myself and having that option wherever I go.

Another way to look at this, is for all the boys and girls out there. How many of you have taken any kind of self defense classes or were taught how to "fight" or defend yourself? Why did you feel the need to do so? These things taught by those instructors are tools for you to use. No different than a gun, it's just a different type of tool. If someone tried to punch you in the face would you try to block it? Why would you not want to be able to try and shoot someone that was purposely shooting at you?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by bohdi

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Had the school allowed the faculty, or the students to carry concealed weapons on campus, the numbers could be lower. Notice I didn't say the numbers would be eliminated. A crazed gunperson is probably always going to claim a few vicitms, that cannot be ignored. What I'm talking about is reducing the casualties and deaths by allowing students and faculty the option to carry. This cannot be ignored as was proven in Colorado Springs recently; armed citizens are deterrents and can put an end to a murder spree quickly. The school has a duty to provide security, actual security for the students, not measures to make students “feel” safe. I imagine that’s part of the tuition cost, and if I was a student attending there today I’d feel ripped off. If the administrators cannot guarantee a safe environment for learning then they should allow responsible adults – which last time I checked is the term used for people of age 18 and older in this country, to be armed on campus and off as local/state laws allow. Otherwise the school administration should look no further than them for allowing this to happen. They make the policy, they enforce the policy. People say guns on campus are a bad idea. Look at the lack of gun play at the Univeristy of Utah, where responsible students are allowed to carry. No mass shootings there.
...
Another way to look at this, is for all the boys and girls out there. How many of you have taken any kind of self defense classes or were taught how to "fight" or defend yourself? Why did you feel the need to do so? These things taught by those instructors are tools for you to use. No different than a gun, it's just a different type of tool. If someone tried to punch you in the face would you try to block it? Why would you not want to be able to try and shoot someone that was purposely shooting at you?

Not going to respond to the whole thing as a) it's tl;dr, b) you're a one-poster and c) I have better things to do this morning. But, in response to the bolded:

The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything.

And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target. This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy. It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible. Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon. As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

What I mean is that an inner city study on an increased violence in a bad neighborhood may not have any bearing on what would happen on the average college campus. I meant that other variables could remove the usefulness of application, like the demographics of the area, the training of those involved (untrained people vs. those licensed to carry, etc).

It should. The goal is to move from "certain types of people in certain environments" to a more inclusive discussion of "learned behaviors and other criminal motivations that may be increased with criminal opportunities including gun access."

Other variables do not remove the usefulness of the study. Demographics are always controlled for. Gun training isn't controlled for because that data is not available. There is no central agency that monitors that and reports the data. That data also won't be available if students get guns on campuses, just like it isn't available now with the concealed weapons permits.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I just didn't want your assertions to go un-responded to.

I like this choice of words better than "unchallenged."

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB.

And also a former sworn police officer.

Another worrisome thing to me was brought up by KSIG RC earlier:

"It will be fascinating to see which happens first: a gun-carrying student shoots a gunman mid-assault and saves lives, or the gun-carrying student fails to stop an assailant/makes a "friendly fire"-type mistake/exacerbates a domestic situation or whatever."

Even professional law enforcement officers and military personnel who receive ongoing weapons training sometimes end up killing or wounding the wrong person.

Having taken a firearms safety class -- or several of them -- does not prepare one for combat.

[bohdi]

Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.

Not going to respond to the whole thing as a) it's tl;dr, b) you're a one-poster and c) I have better things to do this morning. But, in response to the bolded:
Gee, thanks for the warm greeting.

The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything.
Actually, no it wasn't her JOB. She's a volunteer. "The Rev. Boyd, who introduced Assam, stressed that all church guards were volunteers who worshiped at the church and were legally allowed to carry guns."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center

And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target.
Actually, not quite. You don't make a "better target", your already a target in this case. Your chances of being more visible increase depending on when you shoot and if you miss. Then you might be a more visible target. Though if I were a crazed gun man and I met someone that was armed and shooting back at me I would think that is a more risky target to me. The easy ones are already in front of me running for their lives or cowering in fear.

This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy.
I agree, it's not my job either, nor is it my job to protect you or anyone else in the crowd and I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating the ability to chose to shoot at someone in the event they decide to open up on a crowd like this and I feel like I might be next - in this environment that chance is extremely high wouldn't you say? If having a weapon in class increases my likelihood of survival by even 5%, that's 5% I'd take.

It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible.
How exactly does one do that? Jump up and down and attract attention to yourself, essentially making yourself a martyr? Signaling to students around you the way to the door? Shouting something? All these things would bring more focus on you in this situation.

Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon.
Ok, so even if you had the ability and skill to shoot back, you still would not approve others around you having the same ability, because you don't like your fellow citizens to be armed. That's what your saying right?

As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person.
Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to stereotype people like that. Considering that not all college students are under the age of 21. A good deal of students these days are over 21 and have taken classes and shoot regularily. Not to mention a good deal of students are also former members of the military who have had additional firearms training. I on the other hand trust a small percentage of the population with firearms, and surprisingly Police Officers fall into this category. You see the Police only have a limited amount of tax payers funds, and a very small portion of that actually goes to firearms training/qualification. The ammo that is paid for is to perform basic weapons qualification certifications and for advanced tactics - which involves a very small number of people. Most Police Officers don't goto the range on their own time and pay for their own ammo. Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target? Many if not all of your comments are unfair and unfounded.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by bohdi

Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target?

Thank you for helping make my point above.

In a high stress situation an armed person may be as likely to shoot an innocent bystander, him/herself or nobody at all as they are to hit an intruder.

It just seems to me that in the middle of chaos, a lot of people with guns are going to cause more problems than solutions.