« So much for "the anonymity of the internet" being the problem | Main | Are you even a LITTLE afraid there's a hell? »

Sadly predictable

That the Virginia Tech shootings have already been turned into (No) Gun Control fodder that is. Both sides are gearing up to show how VT's tragedy perfectly proves their point.

One of the things I have learned in life is that it's possible for two people to see the same fact, have opposing interpretations of what that fact means, and they're both equally correct.

This of course means that two sides can be equally wrong, and in this case, I do think both sides of the gun control/gun rights issue are wrong about their political agendas and Virginia Tech.

The root of this is that both sides see the gun as some kind of magic spell. The NRA view it as a spell that works by giving everyone guns. If everyone has guns, then we will have a safe society, and we will all be able to stop the government should it attempt to take away our rights. (Oddly, the NRA appears to be fine with the eroding of our civil rights over the last 6 years or so. I guess they only care about the 2nd Amendment. Everything else appears to be fair game) The other side views it as a magic spell that works by giving no one but law enforcement guns. If we don't have guns, then magically, we will have a safe society, and of course the government will act in our best interests. (Again, do they notice the world around them?)

Both sides are using their magic spell arguments to show how Virginia Tech could have been prevented or mitigated. Both arguments are bullshit, even Ted Nugent, who as a politician, is a kick-ass rocker.

On the Gun Control side, well, I think history has pretty much shown that fear of jail time or execution for the use of a gun in a crime only works if the perpetrator gives a rat's ass about such things. When the perpetrator is 'round the bend looney, ala Cho, well, I don't think Jail Time is an issue, and when they're planning on being a martyr, dying for their..."cause" is kind of the idea. Remember, legal threats only work on the sane. Really. I mean, we can't even get sane people to obey the easy laws, and you think a nutbar isn't going to kill people because a law says no?

The other side of it is, no matter where you live, if you want to, bad enough, you will get guns. Period. The NRA is a bit loony on a lot of things, but they are correct on this one. Banning guns will not keep criminals from getting them. Ask Eliot Ness how well Prohibition worked. Virginia Tech had clear rules about guns and weapons on campus. They worked only so far as people obeyed them. Cho didn't. The state of Virginia has clear rules about who can and cannot legally purchase weapons and ammunition. They only work so far as people obey them. Cho did. CouldaWouldaShoulda about "oh, if only they had committed him, he couldn't have bought the guns" is fantasy. If you want to kill lots of people bad enough, you will be able to figure out a way to do it.

Laws cannot stop someone determined to break them or too insane to care about the consequences. Stopping a martyr is nigh-impossible.

However

The NRA position that a completely armed society is a safe society is just as silly. First, people get angry. They lose control. Given my druthers, I'druther deal with knives than bullets. I have a theoretical chance to outrun or dodge a knife. Bullets, not so much. Guns are not, no matter what the NRA wants us to believe, a magic safety spell. They are, like cars, hard to use safely, and the finer points of their operation are somewhat counterintuitive. However, the problem is, while I have to display at least some knowledge of automobile operation to get a driver's license, any damned fool of age, and having a clean record can legally buy and own a rather frightening amount of firepower.

To their credit, the NRA offers safety classes at both the basic levels, and into advanced tactics. However, there's no continuing education requirement with guns, and this is something that both the NRA and the Nuge, god love him, are either overlooking or conveniently ignoring, and it relates to something that I happen to have some expertise in: the Self-Defense Class Myth.

The Self-Defense Class Myth goes something like this: You take a class in self-defense. Maybe an afternoon, maybe a few weeks. You learn useful things. Then you finish the class, maybe get a certificate and some punch, and in most cases, never, or rarely practice any of the actual physical defense parts again. You halt your training, because after all, you took the class. You're now able to defend yourself, right? I mean, that knowledge stays with you forever, right?

Wrong

That class will, after six months without regular, near constant practice, be nothing but a faded memory. The only thing the class does is teach you what and how. Internalizing that, making it a part of yourself? That takes practice. Multiple days a week, forever. You have to devote mental and physical energy to it. If you don't, then when you do have to use it, you're in this "Wait, what do I do next mode" instead of having your nervous system reacting to the threat while your conscious brain is still figuring out what's going on. This is why effectively kicking a guy in the nuts is so hard. We've had it happen so much that we defend against it without conscious thought. We react before we realize what's happening. That's why guys are so good at defense against dick kicks. We don't have to think about it, we just move.

If you have to stop and recall a class or classes, then try to figure out what technique to use in what situation, you're screwed.

I am not saying this based on stuff I've read or people I know. This is personal experience. I've been an active student of the martial arts since 90-91. I've been a black belt since 2002 or so. I currently help teach a class near my home, and am working on my next degree of black belt. To get to where I am *today* required 271 techniques, 7 empty-handed forms, 2 weapons forms, and weapons sparring. I'm not even close to my next black belt. The only way I'm able to even correctly recall anything is to think about it every day. Go through it in my head every day. Physically practice it 3-5 times a week, 2-3 hours at a time.

Without that, I would not completely forget everything, but it's only because of that commitment that I remember anything. There are things that I will do without conscious thought, because I've been doing them for so long. (A few people who grabbed my arm in what appeared to be a hostile manner came real close to a rude awakening.) But were I to completely stop dealing with it? A few years, and I would not be much better off than when I first started.

Yet, the NRA and The Nuge act like the mere possession of guns by the entire contents of the students, faculty, and staff of VT would have prevented this or even mitigated this. Somehow, without the constant, regular urban combat training that police and other law enforcement receive, a building full of people would have all acted perfectly correctly and Cho would have been the only one they shot.

That's not a magic spell, that's a damned miracle.

See, I think it would have gone down like this. Cho kills the first two, and no one really knows what happened, so he gets away. Two hours later, he locks up Norris Hall, (remember, he chained the main entrances shut), and commences to killin'. Going by current data, around a bullet every three seconds.

1..2..3...bang...1..2..3..bang

People hear the shots and the screams, and grab their guns. You now have people running into the halls, armed, pumped so full of adrenalin they can barely breathe, looking for...someone with a gun.

I see him...

They'd have been lucky to get anyone out of there alive. Oh yeah, you have the cops responding to what sounds like a war zone. What do you think their response is going to be?

"Okay citizens, you did your job, good work" is not going to be what they do.

The one unstoppable problem is a lone nutjob who's quiet about things. Cho. Oswald. Whitman.

Hell, Whitman shows that an armed citizenry is not the guarantee of bad guy stopping the NRA wants it to be. There were average folks with guns, they did return fire, and it didn't do any good, because Whitman, while nuts, wasn't stupid. He was also trained in how to shoot people by some of the best in the business. The average folks? Not so much.

Even if they are trained, it's not so easy. For one, if it's 1 vs 300, then the 1 has a target rich environment. The 300? They have to spend a lot more time worrying about hitting the wrong people. That's another part of the regular training cops and other law enforcement types go through: how to not kill the wrong person. The Nuge may go through that training on a regular basis, the vast majority of gun owners? No way.

Had everyone in that building been armed, the odds are far better it would have been even more of a bloodbath, only worse, because there would have been too many of them dying from friendly fire. Explain that to a 19 year old kid, how they accidently shot an innocent.

What both sides want, what we all want, at a deep level is a simple answer. We want to distill a lifetime of slowly spiraling down a path of insanity and rage into a single thing that we can then fix. Both the gun control and NRA sides want this. So does everyone else. Hell, I want a simple answer to this. We want, we need to find the simple answer, to find that one thing that we could have done to stop it. But there isn't one, not one that's both simple and neat. There's no one simple thing that anyone could have done to stop this.

Neither stricter gun control laws, nor more guns would have stopped this, or even slowed it down much. When Cho pulled the trigger for the first time that morning, all bets were off, and the only thing that saved anyone was chance and blind luck.

Neither side will ever admit this, because they want to get their agenda pushed. But it's far closer to the truth than they want it to be. There are no magic spells, there is no Hogwarts. There's just this complicated mess we call life.

Technorati Tags: Critical Thought, Gun Control, Luck, NRA, Politics, Guns

Posted by John C. Welch at 13:41 | Permalink

Comments

I wrote this the day of the shootings, and I think it tracks nicely with exactly what you are saying...

"First of all, more gun control would have made no difference. The fact is that anyone who wants an item -- really wants it -- can get it regardless of what the law says. See also: prohibition.

Second of all, concealed carry would have made no difference either. The odds that someone with a concealed carry license would have been in the classroom, ready, and actually able to take out the shooter is somewhere in the realm of near fantasy.

To summarize, although people on both sides of the gun issue will certainly try to make hay out of this event, the fact is that both sides really have nothing useful to add. The shooting today was an outlier, and a tragedy, and you don't make public policy choices based on outliers."

Posted by: Mike Silverman | April 25, 2007 2:21 PM

Fascinating read. While I am a proponent of gun control, I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.

The NRA's position always seems to be predicated on the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. Popular in the cold war, the idea was that no one would launch a nuclear weapon because they could be assured of being destroyed in response (interesting tidbit - a lot of psychological research says they were right!). Of course, it only takes one bad incident and... well, you get the idea.

This is where it falls apart for the gun debate. In a fully armed world, it probably would deter some percentage of gun use, but when a nutjob DOES decide to use said weapon, it will end up like your warzone depiction above. Only unlike nuclear war, it's likely to happen every day.

The ranged nature of the gun coupled with the ability for someone relatively inexperienced to use it is what frightens me so much about them. No other weapon can hold a large group of people at bay so effectively. Any melee weapon requires being in close range (and you can be subdued, especially by a group of people), or in the case of other ranged weapons, they tend to be slow, complex, or just plain obvious (archery, for lack of a better example).

I have several friends from overseas, and one thing they all comment on is the safety at home. I'm talking about small asian women who definitely do not pose a threat to anyone - no self defense training whatsoever. Yet they feel perfectly safe hopping mass transit and walking around downtown alone at 2am. Violent crime just doesn't happen in Hong Kong, Japan, etc. Robberies and property theft sure, but no violence. In fact the same day that the VT shootings occurred, the mayor of Nagasaki was shot and killed. Gun violence is so rare in Japan that it made national and world news.

Anyway; agreed that more gun control would not have stopped this, much like additional airport "security" like we have today wouldn't have done a damn thing about 9/11. People who want to do something will do it, no matter what checks, laws, or obstacles are in place. However, I do believe strongly that gun control would prevent a lot of accidental deaths and injuries, and prevent people who just snap from having a ready and violent outlet for it. The mentally ill? All we can hope is we find a way to better treat people.

Okay, enough ranting from this corner. Thanks again for the article and interesting read!

Posted by: Joshua Ochs | April 25, 2007 2:30 PM

Heh. I'm VERY familiar with MAD. I worked on B-1B's from 1987-1993. I was on duty the day Bush Sr. took us off Nuke Alert ;-)

That's something that has more to do with cultural differences than anything else, and you have to be very careful with those. For example, Japan seems to have a low rape rate, until you realize they are where we were in say, the 1920s with regard to social attitudes towards rape. I can also point out that Switzerland has a very low gun crime rate, yet has some of the most heavily armed citizenry in any country. Another point that lack of guns != safety is what happened to England's crime rate when they effectively banned private gun ownership.

It is nigh-impossible to look at another country and say "their gun laws are x, and they have less crime, so ours should be x too." Hell, you can't really even do it on a state by state basis. What works in Wyoming would be foolishness in Manhattan, and vice-versa.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 3:19 PM

ITS SO SO SO SO SAD. HEART TOUCHING REALLY. BLESS U. THAT A** GUN MAN, WE GOT 2 STOP GIVIN HIM ATTENTION- MAKIN HIM FAMOUS, U KNOW?????? =>

Posted by: MIchaela | April 25, 2007 4:39 PM

Well, anyone shooting that many people in 9 or so minutes is GOING to be famous, that's unavoidable. But I think that the videos could help people be more aware of the kinds of behaviors that could show a tendency towards this kind of thing.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 4:53 PM

I agree with the statements above that this was an outlier. If Cho wanted to kill people, he could have fashioned a bomb instead. Indeed, no gun control decisions should be made or argued based on the VT events.

That being said...

As I've said countless times on my blog, I think it would behoove you to read some criminologists' books on the subject of gun control. Almost all start out in favor of gun control but, in the end, become convinced that an armed society is a safer one.

Canada has more guns per capita, but far less crime.

Suicides are counted in U.S. homicide counts but not counted as "gun homicides" in other countries, skewing stats.

If you remove black-on-black crime, the U.S. crime rate falls to within the same levels of several other "safer" countries.

Those last three things add up to an ECONOMIC problem, not a criminal or gun control problem. Even Michael Moore hinted at this in his dumbass documentary. :-)

Criminologists routinely determine that areas with higher gun ownership have lower crime rates. If you're a criminal, and you're going to rob a house, would you rather go to a neighborhood whose homeowners are armed with guns or a neighborhood whose homeowners have only a baseball bat to ward off (likely armed) attackers?

Posted by: Erik J. Barzeski | April 25, 2007 5:25 PM

Well, again, look at how you get the "safer" statistics. You juggle the numbers. Suicide gun deaths don't count as homicides. We remove the poorest parts of the country from the numbers.

Miami in the early 80s was a HIGHLY armed place, but I'd have to say that it was hardly safer, even though guns were everywhere.

The idea that you can discount economic causes or racially motivated crime is what leads to statements like the one about high gun ownership == lower crime. I can point you to several areas that would make hash of that statement and quickly too.

But that is part of the "Guns are a magic spell". Pointing to Canada and saying "See, they have more guns per capita and less crime, so that proves that more guns == safer", is silly on many levels. They've nothing close to our population density. Hell, they're bigger than we are, and only have around 30 million people. They don't have a wild west culture, they don't have a gunslinger mythos, if you discount various conflicts with us, they've never had much of anything in the way of local armed violence, and in general, they're far more liberal about things than we are.

Just because they're near us doesn't mean they're like us.

This idea that you can point to ONE thing and say "THIS will make it all better/worse" is overly simplistic, and honestly, wrong.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 6:17 PM

If you're a criminal, and you're going to rob a house, would you rather go to a neighborhood whose homeowners are armed with guns or a neighborhood whose homeowners have only a baseball bat to ward off (likely armed) attackers?

If that question were as valid as you want it to be, there'd be little to no crime in Texas, Mississippi, hell, most of the Southern US, and Miami in the 80s would have been a paradise. The question I have is, person A is wide awake, has the gun out and is pointing it at you. Person B has a gun in a drawer, and is half asleep. Who wins the shootout?

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 6:19 PM

Howdy, John.

I note that you mention that the NRA has not really fought the erosion of the other nine amendments. While there is a grain of truth to that, I believe it is a piece with the ACLU being unwilling to fight for the right to keep and bear arms.

As long as _which_ civil rights you believe are important is a statement of your political party, they are all under threat. About the only way to secure liberty is to convine the populace at large to believe in the general good first, and their agenda second. This is not an easy sell.

I would argue that it is a possible sell, in that without many of those rights, the specific special interests we all have become much harder to maintain, but that still requires a bit too much thought to be explained in a sound bite.

(And yes, I have given money to the ACLU, the NRA, the EFF, and various other political action organizations as they seemed to be the area of personal freedom most under attack. I am not certain this approach has been effective, but it is, at least, self consistent.)

Scott

Posted by: Scott Ellsworth | April 25, 2007 7:14 PM

Actually, the ACLU has, here and there defended Second Amendment rights, specifically here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html.

However, the ACLU does not consider the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals, (the whole "organized militia' thing), so they're not inclined to lock arms with the NRA, as they don't see any validity to the NRA's position.

Honestly, the 2nd amendment is really poorly written, and far too vague.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 25, 2007 9:22 PM

Actually the 2nd Amendment is 100% unquestionably clear in what it means.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's far from vague, don't you think?

Posted by: Nima | April 25, 2007 10:56 PM

"Neither stricter gun control laws, nor more guns would have stopped this, or even slowed it down much. When Cho pulled the trigger for the first time that morning, all bets were off, and the only thing that saved anyone was chance and blind luck."

The only people that could have stopped this was the VT Students who apparently had "a million different ways" they could have prevented that day.

Just sayin', that's what I heard.

Posted by: Thomas Leonard | April 25, 2007 11:28 PM

John today you wrote a semi-balanced response. However, a few points need some clarification. For transparency, I write this as a lifetime gun owner, competitive shooter and firearms instructor. First, you said:

"The NRA view it as a spell that works by giving everyone guns. If everyone has guns, then we will have a safe society, and we will all be able to stop the government should it attempt to take away our rights... The NRA position that a completely armed society is a safe society is just as silly."

You are right, that would be silly if true. However,that has never been the NRA's view or the view of the vast membership. If I am wrong please demonstrate that and I will happily stand corrected and would be ashamed. The fact is, the NRA promotes the protection of the second amendment, gun and personal safety and firearms training. While they encourage mentally sane law abiding citizens to exercise their right to protect themselves, property and country both from themselves and from the potential tyranny of government does not mean they encourage everyone toward gun ownership or conceal and carry. It may be subtle, but significant. I am unaware of any NRA campaign encouraging the mass ownership of guns in the hands of "all" citizens nor the belief that it would usher in a "safe society" as you say. If there was ever a archetypal straw-man argument unfortunately it is this. Such misinformation does not help push the discussion further.

Now for an area where many in the NRA leadership fall short. I agree with you John when you say:

"However, the problem is, while I have to display at least some knowledge of automobile operation to get a driver's license, any damned fool of age, and having a clean record can legally buy and own a rather frightening amount of firepower."

Right on John. You couldn't be more correct! But there is a reason why this exists and it is political and pragmatically motivated. Gun control advocates fight the vast majority of "any" legislation concerning firearms for the same reasons that the pro-abortion movement does. Because it is a slippery slope. Giving into one position it is believed will lead to the reduction of other rights. It is that simple. Consequently, they fight strenuously to limit any such rational measures out of self-preservation. It is a world-class crap of an excuse, but real nonetheless. So, no matter how sane requiring a "license" and "training" for gun ownership is, it is wrought with potential abuse. I wish it wasn't so. But, I for one am willing to forgo some rights for the safety of others, but that does not include the removal of my right to own and bare arms.

Posted by: Jack | April 26, 2007 12:52 AM

The issue of martial arts or "self-defense" training raises other problems. For perspective and transparency (since I apparently have this problem with you in the past), I have been studying martial arts since 1976. I have taught "self-defense" classes. I can speak with a certain level of expertise. You are correct of course about the sheer foolishness of believing that a few hours of training equals self-protection not to mention our intramural debate about martial art "sports" vs true combative skills. However, what it can provide is an attitudinal adjustment to "refuse to be a victim." You may still become a victim, but at least you may go down fighting while giving the person next to you an extended chance for survival. Self-defense does begin in the heart and mind. A determined defender is one hell of a difficult adversary.

What I guess you were trying to do is compare that since physical combat requires continuous life long training to be effective (true) then firearms training and more specifically combative self-defense firearms training requires even more (false). If so, then I disagree wholeheartedly. And I have taught both! Why do I believe this? By the age of 14 I could defend myself with deadly accuracy with a multitude of firearms against a man 2 times my age and size. By the same age unarmed, I could not defend myself physically against my best friend's older sister! That of course would change.

Yet, firearms, in the hands of a reasonably trained person has the undisputed ability to equalize "immediately." Yes John, a more trained and powerful force will "generally" overpower you (though there are enough battles to prove otherwise as well). But that is not cause for not trying. The simple fact is, my wife with a modicum of firearms training (even five minutes) could have "defended" a classroom at VT unquestionably in this case. She and others may have perished, but not all. 30 years of martial arts training would have done nothing to protect her or the other students. As easily as it was for one nut to murder so many so quickly so can one determined individual dispatch a madman. It is self-evident! Furthermore, where was Cho's lifetime of training? It was non-existent and he was pretty damn effective in the face of the defenseless. That is the whole damn point!

You are correct, that firearms in the hands of law enforcement nor law abiding citizens doesn't "guarantee" jack squat, except John a fighting chance! Martial arts training or even a simplistic 4 hour self-defense park district class can do the same thing in teaching people that real threats exist and preparing ourselves for this potentiality is important. Yet when you say that no:

"...more guns would have stopped this, or even slowed it down much. When Cho pulled the trigger for the first time that morning, all bets were off, and the only thing that saved anyone was chance and blind luck.

Sorry, I have to say it, but that's BS John! Chance favors the prepared! Always has and always will. You attempt to create a situation no one would want nor expect in painting rooms filled with "every" student firing randomly throughout their classrooms creating a bigger blood bath. Yes clearing a room or clearing a jammed weapon takes continuous training and we can still screw up, or be over-powered. That is not what is at issue here though. We are talking about self-defense of our life in a terminal situation, not the tactical sweep of a building. It is life or death right now. You created a fallacious argument in your scenario. One bullet and one shot could "potentially" have ended his entry into a classroom and further carnage. A child at 14 could have reasonably defended herself. A few years later, at 18 they can be on a battle field dispatching the horrors of many. History proves this to be the case. We need to stop belittling the resolve and capability of young adults.

You said there are no easy answers or magic spells. I couldn't agree more. And I don't want every student or a majority of the U.S. to be carrying firearms nor do I know of any that do. I want those who are determined to defend themselves and others--who have spent some time to prepare themselves to have that right to at least have a fighting freaking chance when the perverse knocks on the door and says today you die.

Posted by: Jack | April 26, 2007 1:03 AM

Actually the 2nd Amendment is 100% unquestionably clear in what it means.

Nonsense. There have always been restrictions, aka "infringements" on what weapons you can legally own, and the Supreme Court has been consistent in supporting this. It is perfectly legal at all times to infringe pretty much at will on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in a list of specifics as long as your arm.

The idea that the Constitution requires absolute unrestricted weapon ownership by the full general public is a precious myth, and one that I think we stopped believing in.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 26, 2007 8:30 AM

Show me where the NRA favors mandatory non-avoidable training and licensing to purchase a gun and mandatory non-avoidable continuing education with yearly recertifications to continue your legal ownership of said weapons, and I'll concede your point. Just to be clear here, what I am speaking of is:

To simply OWN a gun:

1) You MUST take an extensive course not just in basic safety, but in proper use of a gun in personal combat situations TO INCLUDE simulator tests, extensive firearms law education, and passing of same with a test where you stand a good chance of failure if you aren't on the ball.

To be allowed to CONTINUE to own a gun:

2) You MUST, every year, re-certify via updated coursework and the same level of testing.

Failure of 1) means you are not allowed to own a gun in the US. Failure of 2) means you TURN IN YOUR GUNS until you rectify the situation.

Barring full and ACTIVE support of those, the NRA has nothing. They offer good classes, in fact, I've taken them. But unless they are mandatory both initially and on a recurring basis, and consist of more than basic range safety, and you never need them to own a gun, the NRA isn't really doing much.

So, no matter how sane requiring a "license" and "training" for gun ownership is, it is wrought with potential abuse.

That's a copout. It's the "Since we can't do it perfectly, we won't do it at all" line, and it's bullshit. If you mean to tell me that with the NRA's political power, they can't get a law passed that would actually make a lot of the gun control people happy, you're being silly.

But then, BOTH sides want all or nothing, and in life, if that's your stance, you get the latter far more than the former. Which is why I don't agree with either side. They stopped doing any good long ago, and are now about nothing but political power.

But, I for one am willing to forgo some rights for the safety of others, but that does not include the removal of my right to own and bare arms.

Funny how that works. "Your rights are only important if they perfectly agree with mine". Ah, sweet humanity and our delusions of rationality.

However, what it can provide is an attitudinal adjustment to "refuse to be a victim." You may still become a victim, but at least you may go down fighting while giving the person next to you an extended chance for survival. Self-defense does begin in the heart and mind. A determined defender is one hell of a difficult adversary.

Partially, and you know the fact I'm about to bring up. Women are trained to be victims by our society. A single class, or short number of classes are not nearly enough to counter that training. Most women do quite well until they get punched. Then, thanks to our society, they collapse. As well, how many of them are you going to get to stop wearing those damned victim shoes, dresses they can barely walk in, etc.? Reality says, not fucking enough. "Knowing how not to be a victim" does you no good in the kinds of clothing women are actively encouraged to wear. You want to do some good, lobby to ban high heels.

No, i'm saying it requires the same amount and level of training. You practice it every day, at least mentally. You physically practice it regularly. It becomes a part of your life. Otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

If so, then I disagree wholeheartedly. And I have taught both! Why do I believe this? By the age of 14 I could defend myself with deadly accuracy with a multitude of firearms against a man 2 times my age and size. By the same age unarmed, I could not defend myself physically against my best friend's older sister! That of course would change.

That only shows you had better firearms training than you did unarmed combat training. But let's see here. You could effectively kill a lot of people by age 14, yet you support the NRA's opposition to mandatory weapons training?

Bullshit. Put her in a room with 40 people and have them all start panicking. and running in and out of the door. Somewhere in that group is one person, and the ONLY visible difference is he has a smallish chunk of metal in his hands and perhaps a vest. Exactly where is her clear, safe target. Remember Jack, she gets five minutes of training for something that is a central part of outfits like Delta Force. Oh, and let's make it realistic. She gets five minutes of training six months before hand and is not allowed to do anything more than clean that gun in the meantime. Exactly how many innocents does she get to shoot? because if you think an ADDITIONAL gun is going to calm people down at that point, you have no clue about the psychology of a panicked crowd.

30 years of martial arts training would have done nothing to protect her or the other students. As easily as it was for one nut to murder so many so quickly so can one determined individual dispatch a madman. It is self-evident!

You mean like the unarmed students who kept their cool, and unarmed, kept that door to the classroom shut, and kept him from killing people?

Furthermore, where was Cho's lifetime of training? It was non-existent and he was pretty damn effective in the face of the defenseless. That is the whole damn point!

Nice strawman, but no dice. His target environment was the set of everyone in the building. Anyone else had a target environment of one person in a panicked crowd. Care to juggle the odds with your five minutes of training?

But you were just saying that your wife, with no more than five minutes of training in her life could have stopped cho cold in Norris hall that day. Which is it, no guarantee, or a guarantee? Or is your wife a friggin' Sniper?

Oh lord, here we go. Dude, stay on point. A crowd full of panicked, untrained gun owners in that situation would have been shooting everything that moved, because they would have not had the constant regular training required to train their reactions to the correct response. In that situation, even a Delta Force member couldn't have saved everyone unless they happened to be armed, and come across Cho BEFORE he started shooting. At that point, ONCE HE STARTED SHOOTING, it was blind luck as to who lived and who died, regardless of who was armed and how many guns there were. As it turns out, one shot DID stop him. It just happened to be Cho doing the shooting.

want those who are determined to defend themselves and others--who have spent some time to prepare themselves to have that right to at least have a fighting freaking chance when the perverse knocks on the door and says today you die

I just want them to not be sold a bill of goods, and all too often, that's what the NRA does. It sells a bill of goods to get political power, because any more, it's too big to not have its number one priority be the preservation and growth of the NRA.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 26, 2007 9:01 AM

John,

Well, again, look at how you get the "safer" statistics. You juggle the numbers. Suicide gun deaths don't count as homicides. We remove the poorest parts of the country from the numbers.

I don't juggle the "safer" statistics. Removal of suicides is done because that's the measure used in other countries. In this country, suicides are added in because they make the point stronger.

And the point about black-on-black crime speaks to the fact that guns themselves are not the problem. Other countries like Japan don't have the current economic situation we have in our poorer cities (or the poorer parts of those cities).

Miami in the early 80s was a HIGHLY armed place, but I'd have to say that it was hardly safer, even though guns were everywhere.

Heavily armed by whom? Homeowners? Or criminals and police, with little more civilian gun ownership?

The simple truth of the matter, John, is that you need to educate yourself a little here. You need to read some books by criminologists on gun control. I suggest you start with Armed, by Gary Kleck, or one of the many other books written by scientists, not hippies with emotional stories about how some poor girl was gunned down in a gang fight and how, if guns were illegal, that would have somehow stopped criminals from having guns.

The idea that you can discount economic causes or racially motivated crime is what leads to statements like the one about high gun ownership == lower crime. I can point you to several areas that would make hash of that statement and quickly too.

I'm not the one making the statements. I'm repeating what I've read from scientists. They make the statements, and they explain in detail how they arrive at the conclusions. I assure you their approach is scientific, and they don't just take some poor black neighborhood and compare it to some white neighborhood in Wisconsin somewhere.

This discussion is pointless if you're just going to make things up or fail to educate yourself. You're throwing out stories and attempting to refute facts that you've not even bothered to research. That's not like you, John.

But that is part of the "Guns are a magic spell". Pointing to Canada and saying "See, they have more guns per capita and less crime, so that proves that more guns == safer", is silly on many levels.

I've not done exactly that. Canada's gun ownership does speak to the fact that guns alone aren't responsible for deaths - that there's a human element involved, and it's unique to the U.S. Blame it on population density, blame it on poverty, blame it on the fact that we have warmer temperatures than Canada for all I care about. But you can't blame it on GUNS themselves. Some governments mandate their ownership and see less crime than the U.S. Clearly the number of guns in existence - which virtually every "gun control" law seeks to change - is practically meaningless.

Just because they're near us doesn't mean they're like us.

Exactly the point: ain't nobody like us. But in terms of gun control laws, we have countries on both sides of us: stricter laws and less strict laws. Within our own country, our own states and cities, we have periods of time where gun control has been lax and where it's been heavily enforced. The results? Look them up, but I think you'll find they contradict what you seem to feel is accurate.

This idea that you can point to ONE thing and say "THIS will make it all better/worse" is overly simplistic, and honestly, wrong.

Nobody's doing that, and I don't appreciate having a multi-faceted argument pared down to one sentence. I was brief because I didn't want to get sucked in to yet another gun debate.

However, denying that poverty is perhaps the main issue (of many) is ludicrous. I make no bones about the fact that I believe the "solution" starts with solving poverty (not that I even know how that could happen), and that changing that situation will have the largest effect.

If that question were as valid as you want it to be, there'd be little to no crime in Texas, Mississippi, hell, most of the Southern US, and Miami in the 80s would have been a paradise.

Wrong, John. Within any area there are communities - even individual houses - known to have guns and those known not to. I own guns. My neighbor does not. Not everyone in Texas or "most of the Southern US" is armed, and very few civilians were armed in Miami in the 80s. You're clinging to these tales as if they get you out of a jam, when really they only further reveal your own ignorance.

I respect your opinions, usually, John but you don't seem to have done the slightest amount of research here. Promise me you'll read the book mentioned above. Go ahead and post on it and rip it to shreds when you're done. I'm not saying you'll agree with it or that it will change your mind, but at least we could discuss something common. Right now we're just spinning our wheels: me trying to be brief, you essentially making things up. :)

Person B has a gun in a drawer, and is half asleep. Who wins the shootout?

Let's overlook the fact that your little tale assumes a few things, including:
a) the thief is perfectly willing to kill
b) the thief is able to make it to the bedroom without waking anyone up
c) the thief is robbing people at night
d) the thief is also armed
e) the homeowners are home while being robbed

Any two of those are highly unlikely, let alone all of them.

But since I like facts, I believe I remember reading that such a situation favors the homeowner. In fact, I DO remember reading that unarmed victims are more likely to be seriously injured or killed than armed victims.

But since you seem to like playing the hypothetical game, imagine this: you're at home, asleep at night, and an armed thief has managed to get to the top of the stairs before you hear him. Would you rather have a gun in that situation or not? Would knowing that armed victims are more likely to survive such an encounter change your mind?

No answer necessary. Go ahead and read the book (or some others).

P.S. The second amendment is incredibly clear in what it states. Arguing that there have always been "restrictions" doesn't make the statement any less clear - it simply makes those restrictions potentially contrary to what's stated. Arguing that something isn't clear because of some other thing is nonsense. This is like printing text on a laser printer - real crisp, clear text - and then putting wax paper over it. The original text is still clear. :-P

Posted by: Erik J. Barzeski | April 26, 2007 10:23 AM

Incidentally, "Remember Me" doesn't work, and I encourage you to implement a "subscribe to comments" feature.

I respect and like you (from what I know of you John), and I appreciate a good, hearty debate from time to time. I've grown tired of the gun debate, however, and no longer have the desire or stamina to continue to talk about it. You may have the last word, and good luck.

Please do read some literature from scientists (criminologists) on this, however. You never know: they may give you "more ammunition" to support your beliefs. :-)

Posted by: Erik J. Barzeski | April 26, 2007 10:27 AM

Actually the 2nd Amendment is 100% unquestionably clear in what it means.
Nonsense. There have always been restrictions, aka "infringements" on what weapons you can legally own, and the Supreme Court has been consistent in supporting this. It is perfectly legal at all times to infringe pretty much at will on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms in a list of specifics as long as your arm.

The idea that the Constitution requires absolute unrestricted weapon ownership by the full general public is a precious myth, and one that I think we stopped believing in.

The Supreme Court says a lot of thing one day then decides different another. But I'm asking you to look at the text of the actual Constitution and explain to me how that is vague. Where is the ambiguity in what it's saying? You may not believe what it says is A Good Thing(tm), and it's pretty clear that as a society we don't want to conduct ourselves in accordance it what is actually says, but the 2nd Ammendment itself is very, very clear.

Posted by: Nima | April 26, 2007 1:50 PM

I was thinking about why you cannot understand the clear and unmistakable language of the 2nd Amendment and then I realized it is because you are incapable of understanding most people's language. Or better yet, you choose not to. Your ability to reinterpret people's words has become legendary so why think differently here? Now to your butchering.

"Show me where the NRA favors mandatory non-avoidable training and licensing to purchase a gun and mandatory non-avoidable continuing education with yearly recertifications to continue your legal ownership of said weapons, and I'll concede your point."

What point would that be John? I never argued, recommended, supported, asserted, or suggested any such thing. In fact, I agree in principle with requirements for ownership (though statistics demonstrate conclusively across the globe they would have no positive impact). And that is what I said. You said however:

And typically you obfuscated and failed to support your ludicrous claim about the NRA and propped up another straw-man. So, I will try again. Where does the NRA assert that if everyone had guns we would live in a "safe society." I am waiting and you will never answer, but to assert some other preposterous claim.

Jack did say: "But, I for one am willing to forgo some rights for the safety of others, but that does not include the removal of my right to own and bear arms."

Funny how that works. "Your rights are only important if they perfectly agree with mine". Ah, sweet humanity and our delusions of rationality.

No not mine the Constitution John! It's a bitch. Who is delusional here? I agreed with you John about reasonable requirements which you failed to recognize. Many would string me up for even saying it. So what the hell are you talking about? Yet, I stand alongside a great number of 2nd Amendment advocates who are willing to submit to various training and licensing schemes if that is the will of the people and conforms to the Constitution. That however, cannot abrogate any 2nd Amendment rights for they shall not be infringed!

Here is my favorite from you:
Women are trained to be victims by our society... Most women do quite well until they get punched... You want to do some good, lobby to ban high heels.

What a hypocrite, if some conservative said that you would label it misogynistic. Are you voting for Dennis Kucinich? My wife has been trained to jam her beautiful heels into the skull, eyes, kidney's, groin, shins and the foot of a would be attacker whether standing or on the ground. Maybe liberal women are the boo hoo "victimized society." They are just another victimized class BS excuse. My Texas bred beauty would bring a world of a hurt upon the enemy--even if she loses. And rejoice because she is a flight attendant as well. I promote women everywhere to use all their feminine wiles and tools to stop an attacker. I love high heels! She also can take a hit John because as a white conservative Christian I beat her daily to toughen her up!

Remember Jack, she gets five minutes of training for something that is a central part of outfits like Delta Force... Exactly how many innocents does she get to shoot? because if you think an ADDITIONAL gun is going to calm people down at that point, you have no clue about the psychology of a panicked crowd.

What always humors me about you John is your ability to claim greater knowledge then those around you. Furthermore, your Amazing Kreskin ability to read minds and know what others do or do not have knowledge of is exquisite. Always entertaining and always outrageous. Keep up the good work. For your information, no one with a weapon is expected to survive 100% against a surprise attack. Life is a bitch. When Cho attacked first he had the advantage. When he attacked the second room he still had "an" advantage because he was carrying a weapon and they were not, but surprise was being eliminated each second passing. Reports have suggested that other students had tried to barricade one room yet unfortunately he was able to still "shoot his way in." In another room they were successful, in part, because their methods were more effective and the police were closing in on him at that final moment and he took his life. Thank God he was a coward.

I know you do not know anything about the psychology of a panicked crowd. Defense of person has little to do with the panicked crowd. That is the responsibility of Law Enforcement. Your responsibility is to survive. No one believes or asserts that an additional gun (by which you imply multiple guns) will calm people terrified, immobilized, fleeing or praying for their lives. That has nothing to do with this. One student with one gun with even minimal (in fact now I will say no) training could have stood next to the door and shoot the bastard in the head. Done. He did it and so can they. At the minimum it would have "deterred him" "slowed him down" or moved him to another target rich defenseless group that you would like him to have. It can take one single determined soul to defend himself with a weapon to accomplish that task. Enough of your madness John. That is exactly what you would have done if given the chance regardless of the panicked people around you.

This nonsense about panicked people firing at will at anything that moves has no basis in history, fact or anyone's desire or recommendation. You made it up as usual. Concerning your Delta Force analysis--I still can't stop laughing. I only wish I had the energy left to explain the absurdity of the comment. Why don't you put down the Wii Delta Force game and grow a pair.

Posted by: Jack | April 27, 2007 8:11 AM

Erik, yeah, the remember me's been broke for a while, I just have to get off my arse and fix it.

Heavily armed by whom? Homeowners? Or criminals and police, with little more civilian gun ownership?

Everyone. Dude, people had truly amazing amounts of firepower. I had friends living out by FIU who had to rent storage space to handle their collections. Then you had the Omega 77 yahoos, practicing out in the swamp. They weren't using popguns.

The simple truth of the matter, John, is that you need to educate yourself a little here. You need to read some books by criminologists on gun control. I suggest you start with Armed, by Gary Kleck, or one of the many other books written by scientists, not hippies with emotional stories about how some poor girl was gunned down in a gang fight and how, if guns were illegal, that would have somehow stopped criminals from having guns.

Funny how both side's response to people who disagree is to insist that they don't know any better or haven't researched the issues. As though there's simply no explanation for disagreeing other than "not knowing the facts".

BOTH SIDES IN THIS LIE. BOTH. They both lie their asses off to get press and political power, and any more, that is all they care about. Along with donations. They are no better than any other group with a building and staff, because now, preservation of the group is the primary purpose of both sides.

Which is why I think they're both full of shit. And always will. But then, I think most groups are full of shit. Humans don't scale worth a damn.

But you can't blame it on GUNS themselves. Some governments mandate their ownership and see less crime than the U.S. Clearly the number of guns in existence - which virtually every "gun control" law seeks to change - is practically meaningless.

But then your point that more gun ownership is better fails for the same reason. Guns are not a magic spell for either side, yet both sides paint them that way.

Eric, I lived in Miami from 1970 to 1986, and 1990 to 1992. I'm on pretty safe ground discussing Miami in the early 80s. There were guns friggin' everywhere. Trail-Glades range was NEVER empty, and every gun shop I knew, which was a few, were doing a roaring trade. It wasn't just criminals either.

My gun is in a closet, unloaded, locked securely, as per NRA recommendations. The ammo is also locked. So in that time, I have to wake up fully, make it to my closet, grab the shotgun, unlock it, grab the ammo, unlock it, load the shotgun, chamber the round, then go find the bad guy.

All the bad guy has to do is walk into the room and pull the trigger.

Or do you sleep with a loaded, unlocked gun within arm's reach?

The militia part is what makes it unclear, no matter what your side of the argument thinks. Actually, throw the other side in there too. Without the militia statement, there's no room for argument. Besides, if the second amendment is absolutely clear, then why has the supreme court always held that we can in fact, infringe on the rights of people to keep and bear arms?

and on to Jack, of course:

Read your own advertising, marketing, and lobbying sometimes, only try to do it as not a fanboy.

So what rights are you willing to have restricted as long as it's not the 2nd Amendment Jack? You said that was okay, how's about you lay them out.

As well, please, point me to the various House and Senate bills the NRA has lobbied for that would create a national requirement for licensing, training, certification, and recertification to keep and bear arms legally in this country. Obviously, if the NRA is in favor of such a thing, their records will show their efforts in this area. Or even at the state level? I'm sure that an NRA member such as yourself will be able to quickly show me this information.

LMAO...BAAAHAHAAHA...because of course, all bad guys approach in the open, or single file. Never any gang attacks. Of course, no bad guy has ever had combat training, and will stand there passively while she starts wailing on them. None of them are drunk or high with suppressed pain detection system, so that really nasty scrape on their shin will of course, render them helpless. None of them would attack with a weapon, and not just bust a cap in her ass when she tried to take them out with her +5 high heels of doom.

Nope. All bad guys fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules, and all combat is turn-based. And you say *I* need to put down the game?

his nonsense about panicked people firing at will at anything that moves has no basis in history, fact or anyone's desire or recommendation. You made it up as usual. Concerning your Delta Force analysis--I still can't stop laughing. I only wish I had the energy left to explain the absurdity of the comment. Why don't you put down the Wii Delta Force game and grow a pair.

Funny how you're not willing to take the bet on the five minutes of training thing in a crowded room full of panicking people who all look the same.

Now you try to change the game so that they're right next to the door with a clear line of fire. Oh, and they never miss. And the attacker doesn't duck. And presents themselves as a clean, clear target. Yet *I'M* the one with the video game attitude. It's not a replay of Burr-Hamilton man.

Sorry. They start from a desk in the room, with no idea where the attacker is at the start. You shoot an innocent, you lose. One allowed target.

See, the sad thing is, the BEST you can come up with is "not as many people would have died. Dude, functioning LOCKS ON THE DOORS would have done that. Re-read that damned report. The doors didn't lock. A set of functional room locks would have prevented as many, if not more deaths than your texas-ranger mythical hero would have.

Posted by: John C. Welch | April 27, 2007 9:43 AM

Well, John, I just found this link via The Angry Drunk.

Good reading, in general, and I agree with a lot of your assertions, but not all of them.

Armed law-abiding citizens are better able to defend themselves against armed criminals than unarmed citizens. The thought gymnastics that must be used to refute that are nonsense.

Ordinary criminals are less likely to pull iron if they think they won't be the only one in the room armed.

Nutballs are nutballs. They don't see cause-and-effect the way the rest of us do. In this I agree with you. Using the actions of delusional, suicidal lunatics as a basis for any argument except prevention and treatment of mental illness is goofy.

The knees of both sides have jerked on so many issues, it has become normal to argue only the emotions and opinions, and not look at the facts or think through a logical course of action.

Somebody needs to state the real problem with guns (oil, terrorism, the environment, lead paint in toys, etc. ad nauseam) and begin to build a real solution to the real problem. All this choosing-up-sides crap is counter-productive.

Posted by: RipRagged | July 13, 2008 10:43 AM

Well Rip, way to completely miss the point of the article, which was that BOTH SIDES WERE WRONG TO TURN IT INTO POLITICAL FOOTBALL.

Now, more directly.

Think of all the completely brain-dead fuckers you see in a day. The ones driving while texting. The ones who can't read a sign, or clear instructions. The ones you swear committed a minor miracle by putting their shoes on correctly.

These idiots, these brain-dead wastes of carbon...these are the people that you want to *ARM* because according to your theory, if 100% of the citizenry is ARMED, we'll all be SAFER.

That's not a provable theory, it's actually idiocy, and that's not what you're talking about. What you really mean is "I want to be armed, and I only want the people who are JUST LIKE ME to be armed. That way, WE'LL be armed and the people who are NOT JUST LIKE ME will NOT be armed, and then WE will be safer".

If the NRA et al would just come out and admit that, then they'd at least win honesty points.

But stop trying to tell me that the millions of dingalings out there suddenly become competent because you GAVE THEM A CLASS AND A GUN, and then say that anyone disagreeing is engaging in nonsensical thought gymnastics.

That's just fantasy. The only way that would work is if you tote the guns on a magic cart pulled by Unicorns, and Papa Smurf teaches the class.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 13, 2008 12:16 PM

Sadly predictable

Comments

Post a comment