Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[Drolefille]

[QUOTE=bohdi;1602976]Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.

Gee, thanks for the warm greeting.

You're welcome. People who jump in with one posts on touchy issues are generally sock puppets. Also, quote button is your friend.
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

Her volunteer JOB. She was hired, in part, because she was legally allowed to carry a weapon. Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility.

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.

Right, the gunman won't return fire on someone who might stop him. "Better target" means standing, aiming and firing from a controlled and sadly, visible, position. It means drawing attention to yourself with loud noises and makes you a necessary obstacle for said gunman to overcome for him to continue.

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.

Even if your 5% wasn't pulled from no where, you're talking about 5% out of exactly what chance that someone will bust into your classroom shooting? 1 in a million? And that's why we should all either carry guns or sit next to people who carry guns?

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.

No, that would be stupid. Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover. Helping others is barricading a door, breaking a window open in another room, helping an injured person flee. Unless you are trained in dealing with high-adrenaline, life-threatening situations, the most the average person can do is breathe and run.

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?

No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either.

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.

The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon.

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.

I trust a very small population as well. And, oh my goodness but police officers are in that category as well! Glad we finally agree. None of this addresses the fact that college students are NOT police officers. Nor does it encourage me that said college students if armed would not miss a gunman and hit another student, particularly in a crowded chaotic classroom.

[bohdi]

Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.

The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others.

"Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility." Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered.

I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position.

I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence. Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones? This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons. I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery.

"Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover." - That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences.

"No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either." So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify.

"The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon." Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then We agree.

I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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.



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

Demographics certainly should be controlled for. However, I suspect that they might yield disparate results which may lessen or increase the appropriateness of their application to the campus context. However, I don't know anything about the data you're referring to, and whether or not it applies across a swath of variables that would lend support to this argument is speculation from my angle. Also, I'm not sure I understand your goal. Aren't certain learned behaviors and criminal motivations going to be more common among certain people in certain environments?

I meant unchallenged, I just have an annoying habit of not being able to use the same term repeatedly in an ongoing conversation.

I want to get back into this discussion, but other dueling posters have taken over after your post. Damn, these are long posts, too.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by bohdi

Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.

No, I'm not comfortable with those who aren't highly trained being armed around me. Soldiers? Fine. Police? Sure. Your average college student who can't be bothered to renew his driver's license is not likely to stay up on his FOID card either.

The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others.
"Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility." Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered.

No, she has the responsibility because she chose to volunteer for a position that was given to her based, in part, on her experience in handling a firearm.

I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position.

Shooting at a gunman makes you a target in return. The more cover you use, the less visibility you will have, the more likely someone could run between you and the gunman, etc. Your chances are not "50/50" so if you base your decision making off of those odds, you're starting from a flawed standpoint.

I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence.

If your odds are so tiny than even doubling them doesn't make it a viable concern. "Criminals" don't engage in this sort of shooting spree. "Whackos" as you classily put it, don't think about the number of guns the people they want to kill have. Whatever purpose the NIU guy, or the Virginia Tech guy, had in his head, it wasn't "I'll shoot them because they don't have guns." It is much more likely to be, "I'll get them back, they deserve it."

Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones?

Police officers are never attacked? Shot at first? Gun stores are never attacked? Crime doesn't exist in Texas?

This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons.

Not this sort of suicide/homicide they don't. Someone disturbed to this level is not thinking like that and they expect to die at the end of it. The man who attacked the churches in Colorado had a previous connection there... there was some reason, in his head, why they deserved it.

I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery.

How many college students are there? How many have been shot by a gunman. How many have been in a classroom with a gunman? You might be better off playing the lottery than betting on being in that situation, but either one's a stupid bet.

That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences.

Nothing will help everyone. If everyone in that class room had a gun, people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. This sort of gunman usually takes his own life or has the police do it for him.

So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify.

No. I'm not a pacifist. I'd stop you if possible, and if not, injure you as much as necessary and/or possible while screaming for help. Fists are not guns.

Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then We agree.

Where did I say "minority students" could carry? You're not actually reading what I'm typing any more. Allowing weapons as a general rule on a college campus means that not only non-traditional, ex-military students can carry, but that Joe Student can as well. So nix that.

I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons.

So you don't trust the police or you only trust them as much as you trust a private citzen?

So, anyone who shoots a gun is, on average, highly inaccurate. The police, trained in how to enter and handle a situation where a gunman is in a building with civilians, can control their numbers and their method. The average armed civilian has no training nor control over the police or other civilians. If they're all highly inaccurate, I'd rather have the police handle it thank you. Why add another gun firing into the mix? Or two guns? Or a 300 person lecture hall full of them?

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. And sorry shinerbock, too much practice on line by line quoting on my part.

[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)

[audie97890]

From Theta Mu Chapter ur in our thoughts and prayers? Does anyone know the status of the others who got wounded?!?!

S.K.L.A.M
Sigma Kappa- Theta Mu Chapter at UNCC
Audra Hathaway
Historian Chair

[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.

[DGTess]

1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools.

2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it.

Please cite ONE, just ONE, scientific study that proves your point. By that, I mean something from a relatively impartial source, not the Brady Foundation or the NRA.

Now, I point you to Professor Livriu Lebretscu - the concentration camp survivor who taught at Virginia Tech - who shielded his students with his body. Had that man CHOSEN (again, I'm speaking only of those who CHOOSE to be armed) to be armed, would there have been 32 dead? I doubt it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DGTess

not the Brady Foundation or the NRA.

Brady Foundation and the NRA are not credible research engines anyway, as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by DGTess

Had that man CHOSEN (again, I'm speaking only of those who CHOOSE to be armed) to be armed, would there have been 32 dead? I doubt it.

Maybe.

[bohdi]

My response in parenthesis

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, I'm not comfortable with those who aren't highly trained being armed around me. Soldiers? Fine. Police? Sure. Your average college student who can't be bothered to renew his driver's license is not likely to stay up on his FOID card either.
Considering most states won't allow anyone under 21 to carry concealed anyway, I'll take this as a nod to compromise. People 21 years and older have known to be soldiers, so that qualifies them for your need.


Shooting at a gunman makes you a target in return. (Only if you miss) The more cover you use, the less visibility you will have, the more likely someone could run between you and the gunman, etc. Your chances are not "50/50" so if you base your decision making off of those odds, you're starting from a flawed standpoint. - Actually no I'm not. Wearing a concealed weapon gives you an advantage of surprise.

If your odds are so tiny than even doubling them doesn't make it a viable concern. "Criminals" don't engage in this sort of shooting spree. (Again I disagree. They become criminals the moment they walk onto a campus that doesn't allow firearms) "Whackos" as you classily put it, don't think about the number of guns the people they want to kill have. Whatever purpose the NIU guy, or the Virginia Tech guy, had in his head, it wasn't "I'll shoot them because they don't have guns." It is much more likely to be, "I'll get them back, they deserve it." (VT, sure. Columbine, sure. Colorado springs, not so clear. This one either)

Police officers are never attacked? Shot at first? Gun stores are never attacked? Crime doesn't exist in Texas? (Compared to your average person and situation, it's negligable)

Not this sort of suicide/homicide they don't. Someone disturbed to this level is not thinking like that and they expect to die at the end of it. The man who attacked the churches in Colorado had a previous connection there... there was some reason, in his head, why they deserved it.

How many college students are there? How many have been shot by a gunman. How many have been in a classroom with a gunman? You might be better off playing the lottery than betting on being in that situation, but either one's a stupid bet. (How many never had a fighting chance or option?)

Nothing will help everyone. If everyone in that class room had a gun, people still would have died. Maybe more, maybe less. This sort of gunman usually takes his own life or has the police do it for him. (I actually agree with you here. But that's the point, less loss of life and the means to ensure it.)

No. I'm not a pacifist. I'd stop you if possible, and if not, injure you as much as necessary and/or possible while screaming for help. Fists are not guns. (No but fists are tools, one option. Just like a gun is a tool, like a knife is a tool).

Where did I say "minority students" could carry? You're not actually reading what I'm typing any more. Allowing weapons as a general rule on a college campus means that not only non-traditional, ex-military students can carry, but that Joe Student can as well. So nix that. (You stated older non-traditional students were in the minority, hence they are minority students.)

So you don't trust the police or you only trust them as much as you trust a private citzen? (Not when the Police have absolutely no obligation to respond) http://www.wftv.com/news/15335127/detail.html

So, anyone who shoots a gun is, on average, highly inaccurate. The police, trained in how to enter and handle a situation where a gunman is in a building with civilians, can control their numbers and their method. The average armed civilian has no training nor control over the police or other civilians. If they're all highly inaccurate, I'd rather have the police handle it thank you. Why add another gun firing into the mix? Or two guns? Or a 300 person lecture hall full of them? (In this situation your already in the room, shooter is in front ofyou or behind you. If he's in front, everyone else is already out of your firing range. If he's behind you, most of the students will be too far out of firing range as well. I don't agree with your position.)

Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. (Perhaps you ought to, it's becoming more common place.) I don't feel a need to carry a weapon around wherever I go. And sorry shinerbock, too much practice on line by line quoting on my part.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Brady Foundation and the NRA are not credible research engines anyway, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, to be factual, neither is a research engine.

While the NRA does a slightly better job of backing up its opinions with data, neither is a credible source.

I challenge you to find credible research supporting your point.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Demographics certainly should be controlled for. However, I suspect that they might yield disparate results which may lessen or increase the appropriateness of their application to the campus context.

Not necessarily. College campuses (as a general entity) consist of people of different socioeconomic backgrounds, races, and other demographic factors. There are also thousands of college students with sealed juvenile court and facility records. So the correlations found in neighborhood research can be applied to college students if we conducted a study across college campuses. THis is also one reason why researchers use college students as their sample and generalize their findings to the noncollegiate population.

Which gets to another issue regarding whose gun access is okay and whose gun access will scare the sweetbejeebus out of people:
Are people advocating legalizing guns on college campuses but only for certain types of people from certain socioeconomic backgrounds on certain types of campuses? Background checks are meant to look for background checks, mental health profiles (maybe), and so forth. Sure, background checks are a type of profiling but it isn't profiling based on factors like race and socioeconomic status. Right? It depends on who you ask.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Aren't certain learned behaviors and criminal motivations going to be more common among certain people in certain environments?

That's a topic in and of itself.

For the purpose of this discussion, please refer to my previous response.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I want to get back into this discussion, but other dueling posters have taken over after your post. Damn, these are long posts, too.

Yeah so I bid you farewell and will go back to silent reading, I guess.