flickering pictures

19 responses so far ↓

• 1 Appalled // Apr 15, 2008 at 1:32 pm

  This is what ridiculous, ludicrous, gun-crazy hyperactive kids with nothing to do on their spare time come up with, fueled, of course, by aggressivity and propaganda. The odds of a crazy dude coming into a school and shooting up even 1 person is so small that to even think of wearing a gun in school is stupid. Odds of a crazy dude angry at something someone said to him or at his prof for giving him a bad grade reaching into his pants and pulling the trigger on the guy…much more likely.

  It’s stupid. Instead of wanting students to carry weapons, they should ask for armed security. They would be less likely to shoot up a prof or something.

• 2 Kyle // Apr 15, 2008 at 9:58 pm

  Wow, the level of ignorance shown is the most appalling part. Lets take a look at the facts and maybe they will shed some light on this circus of confusion. First of if you look at the statistics, concealed carry permit holders are 5 times less likely to commit a violent crime than the average person. Secondly unless you as a taxpayer are willing to pay for a campus police officer in every classroom and every public gathering place then you realize that campus police is not the answer. Also if you are implying that I am a ridiculous, ludicrous, gun-crazy hyperactive kid I would have to disagree with that. In fact not only am I a good, law abiding citizen I also volunteer of my own accord as a church youth group leader and a volunteer Spanish translator for my local police department. So if that makes me a ridiculous, ludicrous, gun-crazy hyperactive kid, then guilty as charged.

• 3 Bob // Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  Wow, what a horrible idea! It reminds me of the town in Georgia that passed a law *requiring* every head of household to own a gun. There was a recent story about how terribly bad that went…

  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v46/ai_15729634

  Clearly the gun nuts have lost their minds.

• 4 mark // Apr 15, 2008 at 11:40 pm

  The USA has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, with 90 guns per 100 citizens. Americans have nearly half the civilian-owned firearms in the world.

  Funny then, that all those guns don’t seem to be keeping people safe. The U.S. also has the highest homicide rate in the world. Correlation? Causation? This chart seems to suggest causation, but hey, I’m no social scientist, and I can’t truthfully claim to know for sure.

  But I do know this: statistics aside, it seems to me that someone with a gun is much more likely to shoot me than someone without one.

• 5 patrick // Apr 16, 2008 at 12:00 am

  Assuming that Bob is being facetious, he and Kyle are the only ones here with more than half the IQ of an eggplant!

  Since you have to be 21 to own a handgun and get a concealed weapons permit, I’m not sure how exactly high schools are next. Though, yes, I too would be suspicious of a 21 year old high schooler that isn’t a teacher in training.

  I also don’t know why these same 21+ year olds who *already have CCLs* would suddenly start shooting people on campus when they haven’t done so elsewhere. I don’t know about you, but I find my commute to the University 10 times more aggravating than being there.

  And Mark: you will find that in the US, cities and states with the highest rates of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates. Places like Washington DC and New York, where most law abiding people can’t own a handgun, have the highest. Causation or just correlation?

• 6 Kyle // Apr 16, 2008 at 12:06 am

  How naive of me, obviously guns cause crime just like spoons made Michael Moore fat. If you could, please tell me of the last time you saw a gun commit a crime completely without any human direction. In fact statistically speaking, holders of concealed carry permits are 5 times LESS likely to commit a violent crime than the average person. And if you think that a society inundated with guns causes more crime then you might want to read this article: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

• 7 Kyle // Apr 16, 2008 at 12:21 am

  Thank you Bob and Patrick, especially for the eggplant comment, I would have been happy with a third of the IQ of an eggplant, even I would still be about 100 times smarter than Mark and the original author. If you guys are really concerned about what causes the most careless carnage, here’s some numbers for you, according to recent studies 40,000 people die every year automobile accidents, on the other hand only about 1300 die every year from gun accidents. Wow, that means you are 30 times MORE likely to be killed by a car then a gun. According Mark’s logic, someone with a car is more likely to kill me than someone withone, and 30 times more likely to kill me than someone with a gun, lets just go ahead and ban cars then. And Mark, if I see you on the road, please don’t kill me accidentally.

• 8 mark // Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46 am

  The initial assessment that I have half the IQ of an eggplant is a little generous, and the follow-up estimate of one third is probably closer to the truth. As for the fellow who says he’s 100 times smarter than a third of a vegetable, well, I’ll leave that one alone.

  We know that as U.S. handgun ownership increased, homicides increased too, and America now leads the world in both. Maybe that’s a coincidence, but you’d think that with a third of the nation packing guns, criminals would be afraid to commit so many crimes — at least, that’s the rationale for giving guns to everyone. But just the opposite seems to have happened, and murder rates went through the roof instead. I suppose you can argue that gun ownership increases had nothing to do with the murder increases, but you certainly can’t make much of a case that all the new guns are making people safer, since the homicide rate continued to climb as more guns were introduced. It certainly doesn’t demonstrate that guns prevent shooting deaths, and strongly suggests the opposite.

  It may well be that people with concealed weapon permits are less likely to commit violent crimes — that may be because lots and lots of the people with those permits are police officers, security guards, and other folks who are on the right side of the law to begin with. I’d bet that if you let college students across the country walk around with guns in their pockets, that stat would change quickly and dramatically.

  Arguing that more guns will decrease shootings is a lot like arguing for more ice cream to solve the obesity problem. And the old line that “guns don’t kill people, people do” isn’t quite right — it should be “guns don’t kill people, people with guns do.” And they do, in America, more than anywhere else in the world.

• 9 patrick // Apr 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm

  Mark,

  You don’t seem to understand the issue: all that is being discussed is whether or not *people who already have CCLs* should be allowed to carry them to class if they, being 21+ with a license and training, can already carry them almost everywhere else.

  And, no, they are not off duty cops etc. 37 states allow any law abiding citizen who is 21+ to carry a concealed handgun if they can pass ( a rather basic) exam.

  I got my permit with about 30 other people. The most common profession in the group was Realtors (female, in fact) because there had been a recent string of rapes during house showings. (They now require a picture ID of potential buyers and a copy is made at the office before any meeting takes place at an unoccupied house.)

  The second largest group was university faculty, staff, and students, like me. We can’t legally carry on campus, but we can leave our guns in the car nearby.

  I don’t know why it surprises “good liberals” that the vast majority of people are “on the right side of the law to begin with”. And they say we “gun nuts” are paranoid!

  PS: Studies have found that armed civilians are much *less* likely to shoot an innocent person than the cops are. The reason is pretty obvious: you know when you’re being attacked. Whereas the cops show up and have to assume the worst of everyone.

  PPS: It is not true that crime has increased with gun ownership. In fact, in the US, exactly the opposite is true: we have more guns per capita today and less crime per capita than almost any time since the late 1960s. We also have the fewest firearms accidents *in absolute number* since records have been kept starting in the 1930s. (The “almost” is because crime is up a bit in the last few years. We can all thank His Hindness King George.)

  -p

• 10 Dan // Apr 17, 2008 at 10:56 am

  I guess it makes sense for some people in risky situations to carry guns, but these people should go through a detailed screening process, where they’re interviewed and have their lives dissected before any decision is made. But to let every person over 21??? How stupid is this law? I guess it’s as stupid as the country’s president and the 50% who voted for him.

  Now, blood-thirsty Amercians don’t need to invade countries overseas, like Iraq and Afganistan, they can just cross the border and “free the world”.

  And just in case I wasn’t clear, the only eggplants here are you Kyle, Bob and Patrick. And even though the eggplant is usually a nutritionless vegetable, it must be insulted by this comment.
  If this simple post anooyed you so much to extent that you had insult people, then I’m sure what shmucks like you would do with guns.
  Yes, guns never walked around killing people, people who are abusive and those in horrible situations “lose their temper” and kill others, USING THE DAMNED GUNS THEY LEGALLY OBTAINED.

  Watch the damn TV, I think we have enough crimes. It doesn’t matter which states do more than others, the rates are increasing. Watch any american channel and the first 20 minutes of local news is always about someone being killed or attacked.

• 11 patrick // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:53 am

  Dan,

  Unfortunately, you seem to have a disconnect between reality and perception. I shouldn’t have to tell you this, but just watching TV doesn’t give you an accurate picture of the world as it really is. Ever hear the saying “If it bleeds, it leads”?

  Reality is that the concealed weapons laws work. They benefit exactly the people they should: law abiding, responsible, adult citizens. The people who commit crimes or who are predisposed to commit crimes don’t apply for, nor can they obtain, such permits from the state.

  Most, if not all, states require that their statistics regarding CCLs that are revoked or CCL holders who break the law are made public. If these people actually went into fits of rage and were murdering innocents left and right, don’t you think the gun ban lunatics would advertise it?

  The truth is, when Florida, for example, liberalized its CCL process in about 1989, it didn’t become the “Gunshine State” as predicted by gunophobes everywhere. CCL holders were and have been for almost 20 years, the most law abiding group of people you can find. The same is true in every other CCL state (35 now, +2 that have no licensing requirement at all).

  Like many other gunophobes, your irrational prejudices have kept you from participating in the real discussion. Once again, the debate going on is not whether to arm all college kids and turn them loose. It is whether or not it makes any sense to say that a person licensed to carry a handgun to the supermarket, office, coffee shop, etc… should continue to be barred from carrying on a college campus. You may not “like guns”, but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

  I have been driving for about 20 years now. In that time, I’ve always had a spare tire with me, though I never needed it. I didn’t even once pummel anyone with my lug wrench, though god-knows some drivers have begged for it. I expect the same is true for most people: they carry a spare tire and lug wrench in the car, though they have never changed a tire on their own or beaten anyone to death.

  The tire and lug wrench aren’t there because you expect to get a flat. If you expected a flat, you probably wouldn’t leave home or would take a different route. Concealed handguns serve essentially the same role: you probably won’t need it, but if and when you do, it is very, very handy to have.

  It is certainly true that the spare tire and the concealed handgun could encourage people to take risks they otherwise wouldn’t. Those risks, however, aren’t necessarily a bad thing. If having a gun makes you feel safer walking alone to your car after dark, more power to you. You *should* feel safe doing that, and in all likelihood you are.

  Taking unnecessary risks can be foolish and can turn out bad. But the statistics say that this just isn’t really a problem: most adults avoid the hassle of placing themselves in a situation were they are more likely to get a flat or to need their gun. That’s called mature decision making and its why you and I can agree that 12 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to drive or carry a gun.

  Most adults who act immaturely quickly run afoul of the law and are then prohibited from getting a concealed carry permit. Ah, the system at work!

  -p

  PS: You mean 50% of the 40% who can and actually do vote. And, yes, they are poor deluded souls like yourself. Pity is in order.

  I can’t imagine how upsetting it must be to be convinced that most people are homicidal maniacs just waiting to be enabled by an inanimate object. Therapy is the only hope.

• 12 B // Apr 17, 2008 at 1:12 pm

  I agree with Patrick. I think therapy is in order. I just don’t think I’d be as limited in who I’d prescribe it to. I’m considering locking you all in a room with one of those radioactive coconuts and not letting you out until you calm down.

• 13 Lydia // Apr 17, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  I have to say that if I really wanted to, I am sure I could convince myself of anything and probably come up with a very attractive argument for my point of view to convince not only myself but others too that I am right. So when Patrick claims that Mark does not understand the issue being discussed, I have to wonder Patrick if you see the whole world with the same tunnel vision and how much time you or any one else who thinks concealed weapons on campus is a wonderful idea has spent convincing themselves that they are right. Arguments such as guns don’t kill people, people kill people might be catchy, but empty. I have to ask: Where does this panicked, ever growing insecurity come from that people feel guns are necessary? I get the feeling that these people have replaced the security blankets of their childhood with guns. Well guess what? Even if you carry a gun to school, is that going to stop a bomb from dropping, someone stabbing you in the back unexpectedly or stop child molestation? Guns do not solve all problems, stop acting like if only people had a gun they’d be ok!
  I know I am glossing over many of the arguments presented here but they seem to catch and grab any and every fact to beef up an essentially empty argument that guns are great. If Charlton Heston were still alive Kyle , I am sure you’d be bossum buddies.

• 14 patrick // Apr 17, 2008 at 5:29 pm

  Lydia,

  So far, only Kyle, Bob, and I have defended general gun ownership and none of us have said or claimed:

  1. “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, or
  2. “Guns … solve all problems, … if only people had a gun they’d be ok!”, or
  3. “guns are great”.

  In my last post, I think I was pretty explicit that I don’t think #2 is remotely accurate. In fact, I’m pretty sure that most law abiding adult citizens do ok with or without a concealed weapon.

  Regarding #3, I think we’ve been pretty clear: guns are inanimate objects, inherently neither good nor bad nor loving nor scornful nor scarred nor any other subjective or emotive adjective. They can certainly be used in various ways, but we have asserted that the people who are issued CCLs in the US are much more likely to use there guns in appropriate ways, if ever at all, than the general population. Nothing has been offered to disprove this statement. It might surprise you. It might not “feel right” to you. It just happens to be true. If I thought you cared, I could provide links to State records demonstrating it. (The Texas Dept. of Public Safety, for example, releases their statistics every year on the TDPS website.)

  We “catch and grab any and every fact” because these facts tell us how things really are and not just how they make us feel or how we wish they were. That’s how you persuade rational people: arguments supported by facts. As far as I can tell, you and the other “anti’s” just don’t like the idea that law abiding adults can possess firearms for self defense, whether concealed, at home, or otherwise. It’s certainly a defensible position, ***but not the issue addressed by the CNN article that started this discussion***. The issue at hand is …. (see my last several posts)… which is a distinct question.

  The simple truth is that gun ownership has been the norm in North America for the last 400 years. Average people, and their family members (including “children”), have had access to firearms all this time without shooting each other at every provocation.

  What has changed is that people brought up ignorant of firearms have started to become a significant minority and many of them have an irrational, “panicked, ever growing insecurity” that guns present an intrinsic, unjustifiable threat.

  Of course, their only experience with guns comes from popular media: trashy TV “news” and even worse “entertainment”. Despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, they are convinced that the nonexistent “gun problem” needs urgently to be addressed and that anything that decreases the number of guns or rate of gun ownership is a good thing.

  Of course, there is nothing “obviously” true about such a position: 99.99% of guns and 99.9% of gun owners are never involved in harming anyone (at least with a gun). Blind attempts to eliminate guns and gun ownership end up overwhelmingly impacting the law abiding, because most gun owners are law abiding. (I’m guessing at the numbers above, but call it 95% and 90%; my point is the same.)

  Very few pro-gun people would argue that there aren’t serious issues related to modern life, urbanization, and gun ownership. Pro-gun people are, for example, by far the most active at promoting firearms safety—meaning, *if* you are going to have a gun, learn to store it and handle it safely. Pro-gun folks would love to reduce the misuse and abuse of firearms.

  The problem is that most of the noise on the other side is coming from anti-gun people who are more interested in eliminating guns than their misuse and abuse. Ignorant paranoids are the backbone behind the recent legislative drives to harass law abiding gun owners. They have given us such crime demolishing laws as: a 5 day “cooling off period” when you buy a gun, even if you already own 10 or your boyfriend is threatening to kill you tomorrow. A one-gun-per-month law that only lets you buy one per month, because only criminals buy more! (Hmmm…. Ever hear of a thing called Christmas?) A ban on the most commonly used rifles in high power marksmanship competition because they have “no sporting purpose”. And the list goes on, and on, and on.

  These laws have no measurable impact on crime or the abuse and misuse of firearms. After all, how many drug dealers would spend $3,000 for an Italian target pistol for use in a drive-by? Their only virtues, as far as the anti’s who think them up are concerned, are that they harass the law abiding gun owner and cost little money to “enforce”.

  This last point is the key to political viability: actually doing something about drugs, domestic violence, or mental illness costs money. Going after law breakers costs money and takes effort. Harassing me while claiming to be fighting homicide and suicide is priceless.

  Would allowing CCLs to carry guns on campus stop campus shootings or decrease campus violence? Odds are no, for the simple reason that there just isn’t a significant amount of mass shootings or other violence on campuses. Would it hurt? All the evidence suggests that it wouldn’t and, importantly, it might actually protect students where they are most likely to be harmed: on the way to and from school.

  Would making guns “harder to get” stop school shootings and violence on campus? Not a chance in hell. As Lydia says, it won’t protect you from a bomb or a knife in the back.

  My suggestion is that the antis first try to be the change they would like to see. Try to figure out why you are so scarred of the law abiding, adult masses. Ask yourself if fear and ignorance are likely to make the world a better place.

  -p

  PS: I think marksmanship and firearms safety should be mandatory education in high school. A few sessions shooting and cleaning rifles and handguns should teach most people to appreciate and respect them like any other power tool. Maybe even a session or two on reloading ammo. I don’t know if it would work, but I it would be nice to break the cycle of ignorance.

• 15 Kyle // Apr 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  Lydia,
  Thats so sweet of you to say, Heston was the man, I’d love to hang up out with him and kick hippies!

• 16 B // Apr 17, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  Yes. Hippies are bad people. I like to send them radioactive coconuts in the mail.

• 17 patrick // Apr 17, 2008 at 11:28 pm

  Now Cartman… I mean Kyle… behave! or else no CheezyPoofs for you!

  -p

• 18 Julia // Apr 23, 2008 at 6:01 pm

  Guns and confused, hormonal teenagers? A better mix could not be found.

  Does it make sense to ban guns from university campuses? To me it does. I can’t imagine my school as it exists with random guns walking around safely holstered beneath a shirt or coat. I remember my Uncle Ted’s guns hanging on the walls of his house and cottage. I remember how long he took out in the woods stalking deer, how careful he used to be with the carcasses and how many fish he would catch. He was never one for innocent bystanders or making a strong statement about something or other. And he didn’t need glocks to hunt fawns.

  I don’t want guns walking near me. I have learned that if someone attacks me and I have a weapon, there is a very good chance that weapon will be taken from me and used on me. I fight with my knees, my voice, I run at the first opportunity. I remember that in Australia the gun deaths increased by 29 percent after the gun control laws took effect. I realize that making all guns illegal by default makes all weapons concealed and out of my sight. I remember that it is far easier to get forgiveness than permission.

  It is a hard and hypocritical truth that meters away from university zones are regular streets where gun owners can pass freely with concealed or unconcealed weapons. Is it sensible to prohibit guns based on an arbitrary line of demarcation? And how likely is it that law-makers, so entranced with conviction that the relatively new idea of juvenile delinquency are using this concept of protection and prohibition to further the concept that children are less than people, potentially harmful to themselves and others, not eligible to vote and/or pass laws and certainly not to be taken seriously.

  I don’t want guns at my school. I don’t imagine for a moment that anyone is going hunting with a handgun. I don’t think women are safer with weapons to fend off potential attackers. I don’t think campus security is effective or meaningful. I think we’re all in this together.

  It doesn’t make sense. In many ways it is unreasonable. It’s what we’ve got to work with until the need to shoot each other diminishes or disappears.

• 19 Asher Vijay // Apr 27, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  Why do people still think that MORE guns are a good solution?

Leave a Comment