Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. I don't feel a need to carry a weapon around wherever I go.

To be fair, I'm not in constant fear of bad car wrecks, but I still use my seatbelt. I'm not afraid of random disasters when I leave the house, but I still carry my cell phone just about everywhere. I don't live in constant fear that people will break into my house, but I lock my doors because it is a relatively simple precaution I can take. So is carrying a weapon to many people.

I'm not sure it was your intent, but a lot of people attempt to disparage gun owners or those who wish to extend their right to carry by labeling them as paranoid. If it is to be categorized as "fear," I don't think carrying a weapon is in any way irrational. Some people carry pepper spray or take self-defense classes. Others carry firearms and get training to accompany that. Seems reasonable to me.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be fair, I'm not in constant fear of bad car wrecks, but I still use my seatbelt. I'm not afraid of random disasters when I leave the house, but I still carry my cell phone just about everywhere. I don't live in constant fear that people will break into my house, but I lock my doors because it is a relatively simple precaution I can take. So is carrying a weapon to many people.

I'm not sure it was your intent, but a lot of people attempt to disparage gun owners or those who wish to extend their right to carry by labeling them as paranoid. If it is to be categorized as "fear," I don't think carrying a weapon is in any way irrational. Some people carry pepper spray or take self-defense classes. Others carry firearms and get training to accompany that. Seems reasonable to me.

No, it's not an attempt to disparage your average gun owner. I don't see a need for conceal-carry situations though because I don't think it's necessary. And I feel that this push for conceal-carry on college campuses is drummed up in a sense of fear and paranoia of "It could be YOU" or "It could have been YOUR CHILD." Proponents aren't above using fear to win their argument.

That said, a weapon is an offensive solution, not a defensive one. It is active, not passive since no one's going to be wearing hip holsters and making everyone aware of how armed they are. Seat-belts are defensive, weapons are offensive. And guns are lethal ones on top of that.

Not really suggesting this as a solution, but tossing it out there: what about bean-bag guns. How would Joe Firearm feel about "non-lethal" alternatives? (I acknowledge that such things can in certain circumstances kill but are generally non-lethal)

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, it's not an attempt to disparage your average gun owner. I don't see a need for conceal-carry situations though because I don't think it's necessary. And I feel that this push for conceal-carry on college campuses is drummed up in a sense of fear and paranoia of "It could be YOU" or "It could have been YOUR CHILD." Proponents aren't above using fear to win their argument.

That said, a weapon is an offensive solution, not a defensive one. It is active, not passive since no one's going to be wearing hip holsters and making everyone aware of how armed they are. Seat-belts are defensive, weapons are offensive. And guns are lethal ones on top of that.

Not really suggesting this as a solution, but tossing it out there: what about bean-bag guns. How would Joe Firearm feel about "non-lethal" alternatives? (I acknowledge that such things can in certain circumstances kill but are generally non-lethal)

A couple of things I'd dispute and a couple I'd agree with:

I certainly don't think either side is above using the fear factor. I think my side (for concealed campus in most places) can make legitimate points without playing on people's fears. On the other side, I think the anti-gun crowd bases much of their platform on scaring citizens. Painting the average carrier of a concealed weapon as a wildly shooting maverick is the same thing. These generally aren't people who go purchase a weapon and simply start carrying it around. Many are very capable of operating their weapon in all situations, and just about every time I go to the range I see civilian shooters putting together groups that would make seasoned cops envious. Now, this is simply anecdotal, but I'm explaining where my position grows from. I think the idea that more people would die as a result of concealed carry on campus ignores the abilities of those who carry, in addition to the more important skill many of them possess: years of training/contemplation/experience resulting in the good judgment to know when to risk shooting and when to stay concealed.

Weapons are both offensive and defensive solutions. This depends on definition of course, but the use of the weapon in a VT scenario would be in the defense of others and self. Perhaps this is a good spot for a trite statement like "the best defense is a good offense." Besides lethality, how are mace type solutions or certain "self-defense" maneuvers any less offensive?

Non lethal solutions are fine. I think they're great tools. However, when someone is threatening me or my family (or friends or classmates) with deadly force, and especially when they've shown they're willing to act with the intent to kill, I don't want to mess around with less-effective forms of defense. You'll never see police use a tazer against someone shooting at them. The point is to stop the threat ASAP, and a gun is the most effective method of doing that. Maybe that seems cold, but my respect for an individual's right to keep living ceases when that person attempts to take the lives of innocent people.

[DeltAlum]

Shiner,

First, let me say that I'm pleased and impressed with the tone of your argument and thank you for that. For the most part, that goes for the rest of the posters as well.

Second, unfortunately, I don't share any confidence that the average gun owner has the training and mental capacity to react cooly and rationally to this kind of situation.

Third, given a situation like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois or the others, a lot of guns and no formal tactics among the owners would lead to dangerous crossfire situations with the potential for a lot of innocent casualities. Not meant to be humerous, but the last thing needed is to form a "circular firing squad."

Finally, as a small hijack, this discussion has led me to Google a lot of information on Columbine which I hadn't before. My interest in this particular case is because the school is about ten miles from my home, and the facility in which I worked then, and now work again, is four or five miles away and became the headquarters for ABC News, as well as feeds for CNN and other news agencies. When the shooting happened, I was called back from the National Association of Broadcasters conference overnight to help coordinate. The stuff I "Googled" is pretty dry prose, but fascinating.

And scary.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

Shiner,

First, let me say that I'm pleased and impressed with the tone of your argument and thank you for that. For the most part, that goes for the rest of the posters as well.

Second, unfortunately, I don't share any confidence that the average gun owner has the training and mental capacity to react cooly and rationally to this kind of situation.

Third, given a situation like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois or the others, a lot of guns and no formal tactics among the owners would lead to dangerous crossfire situations with the potential for a lot of innocent casualities. Not meant to be humerous, but the last thing needed is to form a "circular firing squad."

Finally, as a small hijack, this discussion has led me to Google a lot of information on Columbine which I hadn't before. My interest in this particular case is because the school is about ten miles from my home, and the facility in which I worked then, and now work again, is four or five miles away and became the headquarters for ABC News, as well as feeds for CNN and other news agencies. When the shooting happened, I was called back from the National Association of Broadcasters conference overnight to help coordinate. The stuff I "Googled" is pretty dry prose, but fascinating.

And scary.

Fair enough. Still though, a couple of things:

1) Depending on the state, anyone can purchase a weapon with relative ease (unless you live in a state that people jokingly refer to as the "People's Republic of _________."). Carrying is an entirely different ballgame.

2 and 3) Even if I were to give you that the average gunowner is irresponsible, I'd strongly argue that the average person who carries concealed is not (this isn't the case, I think the average gun owner is at least as responsible as the average person driving a car). Many states require training. Almost all require heightened background checks, fees, and often extended waiting periods. I strongly suggest from my experience and from reading extensively on the subject that those who will go through the hassles of legal concealed carry take their role very seriously. Many, many such people take firearm training above that which is required. Every person I've ever met (seriously) who legally conceals a weapon practices regularly, and that practice isn't inexpensive. Internet searches will yield thousands of threads about when to act and when to refrain to doing so, and I've found that this is absolutely one of the most intense communities when it comes to disciplining and shaming their own. These people live and die by the four rules of gun handling, and I think it shows. You simply do not hear about a person carrying concealed hurting innocent people very often. It is quite simply, extremely rare.

Further, I gave you information about the hassles and cost of carrying concealed to further the idea that not everyone is going to run out and do this. In fact, I suspect relatively few will. Not only is it expensive and time consuming, it simply isn't overly comfortable to do. As a recent college student, I imagine the idea of going to your local probate court during business hours is enough to dissuade all but the truly dedicated.

Finally, I simply don't buy into the logic of the collateral damage argument. Because some people could get hurt in a "crossfire", we're not going to allow anyone a means to defend themselves? Is there really any merit to keeping all the rounds going in one direction when that direction is the rest of the class? There are always risks. But if I'm sitting in a classroom with a gunman spraying fire, I'm praying someone has something that can stop him. If its my family or friends in there, I'd much rather risk the chance of them being injured by a gun-owner trying to do the right thing. To me that is a much better gamble than having them defenseless against someone who is intent on taking as many lives as possible.

I know I can't give everyone confidence that this is the best solution. It isn't even really a solution, to me it is simply a common sense extension of rights granted everywhere besides on a college campus. However, for those not familiar with guns or gun safety, I encourage you to have a look around the internet and do a bit of research. Head out to the range with a friend who knows what they're doing. I think you'll find that the "gun-culture" in America is a culture that places an extremely high emphasis on personal responsibility and safety.