So what happens if the shooting starts in the back of the room with everyone focused on something else like the professor in the front of the room? How can you possibly identify a random shooter in a crowded room with no training? I guess you shoot the guy that is wearing the shirt that says “crazy guy with a gun” or just shoot the first person you see shooting. Then you can pray the untrained guy across the room who was dozing off does not shoot you, since you were the first person he saw shooting and always thought you were a unstable.

jero_jones

Ok, so in your hypothetical situation, its better for only the crazy to have a gun. Now everyone is unarmed, and knows who is going to kill them…. and can’t do a damn thing about it.

Then everyone dies except the crazy gunman. Hooray, that’s much better.

Seriously, did your “worst case” scenario for “everyone is armed” get higher than a 100% body count for the classroom?

Because your proposed solution got everyone except the criminal killed. I think any option would be better than that. Of course I’m looking to keep innocent civilians alive, and I’m not too worried about criminals.

I’m not sure what your goal is.

Sadly, the politically correct sign:

GUN-FREE ZONE

has again been translated, in the realworld, as:

VICTIM HUNTING PRESERVE

I think all NYT staffers should march through the woods in bear country munching on corned beef sandwiches so they have the opportunity to reason themselves out of a confrontation with their superior logic.

Or through some of the rougher parts of their own city at night with $20 bills hanging out of their pockets, so they can try it with the two-legged animals.

michaelo on February 15, 2008 at 6:26 PM

What a great idea! Then they could prove how safe gun-free cities like NYC really are!

The gun-control agenda is driven almost entirely by ignorance and sensationalism.

Merovign on February 16, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Truer words were never spoken.

You’d almost think the guns did it on their own without a person pulling the triggers.

wytammic on February 15, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Bingo….because guns are evil and all people are inherently good.(sarc)

Fox is reporting that he may have bought his firearms from the same Internet gun shop as the VT shooter.

That’s the part of the post that raised my eyebrows. Wow.

Not that an ideologue is ever convinced by evidence. They can always explain it away.

If you’re one of those rare creatures, the true innocent who literally doesn’t know anything, and you can’t decide who to trust, just figure out who’s telling you the truth.

Example: The NRA says the 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right, the Brady Campaign says it’s a state/government right (unlike any other part of the Bill of Rights).

So, go read what the people who WROTE the Constitution say, and they all say it’s an individual right.

So, the controllers are LYING TO YOU.

From there, it should be easy to figure out who to trust.

http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.gunowners.org/sourcetb.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fstb.htm
http://gunrightslinks.com/information.html

And if you intend to rebut with “but those are pro-gun websites,” please consider what an unabashed fool you will look for saying so.

And learn to do your damnable homework instead of listening to jackass reporters who can’t tell the difference between “by” and “with.” If people could READ and THINK this wouldn’t even be an issue, and we wouldn’t have to fight every damned issue EVERY DAMNED YEAR – FOREVER.

With regard to shooting people in the leg – it’s been pointed out why this is a bad idea, but the short version is: A firearm is lethal force, and no matter what you try to aim at you are using lethal force – period. If you don’t feel justified in using lethal force, but you use it anyway, this will be seen by the court as a non-justified shooting.

All this kill/wound/no-kill crap is irrelevant – the reason for a defensive shooting is to STOP the bad guy from killing/maiming you or someone near you. Frankly, whether the crackhead killer lives or dies is of secondary importance, and I’ll worry about that after I’ve stopped him from killing me.

And shooting someone in the arm or leg is far from a guarantee that they will stop trying to kill you.

And “jero_jones” basically has no clue about law-enforcement training, civilian firearm training, the differences between the two, or the track record of the two, and is essentially totally unqualified to comment. Which is pretty normal for people who hold those political views, actually.

The gun-control agenda is driven almost entirely by ignorance and sensationalism.

I used to get mad when liberals like this would fail to mention that these incidences happen in ‘gun-free’ zones or cities with gun bans but since when have liberals and facts been good bedfellows? It’s just comical. Go for the easy gut response not the one with an ounce of logic and you are DNC material.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often….

and decide to allow total corrpution. now i certainly would not prefer it, but it does have its merits in some limited way.truecon on February 15, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Well, the lead in the paint makes the toys brighter and shinier.

And the poison in the food makes your pet’s last meal extra delicious.

doubleplusundead on February 15, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Comment GOLD.

and eliminating all ‘fun to shoot guns’ and simply allowing basic hunting and home protection weapons?
truecon on February 15, 2008 at 6:37 PM

…fun to shoot…?

You’ve just eliminated every gun I’ve ever fired.

His biggest regret was that his third shot at the scum that attacked him went through his picture on the wall of John Wayne.

What a true man!!!!!!!!!!!!

Insomniac on February 15, 2008 at 9:42 PM

Bob Owens on February 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM

Being that I live in the 49th State, I have more rights up here then most of the “Lower 48″. Check the laws if you will.

Since I am pretty well established with my .40 cal, I happen to do target practice about once every week or two if I am really busy. But I make sure I do close range and long range. I have seen people get shot in the head, legs, arms, shoulders. and the one thing I have learned is always aim lower then what you want to hit. Feet are good as well. As I said I am not one to do something dumb.

Also attacking me with “gun laws” is fine, as long as I know my laws and you know yours. :D

But I am not the problem! There should be teachers who should be able to bring a gun to school. I also think anyone taking any pills that help with ANY mental illness should not be able to registar and purchase a weapon. These are my opinions, you may or may not agree…. But giveing me crap for owning a hand gun…. wooooo I am soooooo going to throw my gun out. In your dreams!

I suggest you all read Dan Savage’s column in the Chicago Reader http://www.chicagoreader.com about the Columbine killings. It can be found in their free archives and its sardonic title is “Clique…Clique…Bang!’

A quote: “While I didn’t suffer the extreme abuse some of my friends did, I was fucked with enough to spend four years fantasizing about blowing up my high school and everyone in it… I wasn’t shocked that something like this could happen in a high school. I was shocked that it hadn’t happened in any of mine.”

The NIU and Virginia Tech shooters were clearly mentally ill and should have been stopped. For others, the solution is right in front of our noses. And more/better gun laws isn’t it.

But I do CCW hold, and I wouldn’t shoot to kill … I shoot to maim. Legs are the best, shoulders, but you have to be careful.

Just got back from the hospital and I’m going to echo Insomniac.

upinak, I’m not sure of the specifics of your state, but in most locations I’m aware of where CCH is allowed, doing what you state will lead to a very long prison sentence for YOU, not the perp.

If you can’t justify shooting to kill, you are justified to shoot. Period. The threat is either life-threatening and worthy of an in-kind response, or it isn’t. Shoot to kill or don’t shoot at all is what the DA will tell the grand jury, and when explain you aimed for a shoulder or leg to “maim” instead of a center mass shot, you’re done. A couple of months in prison is likely when convicted, possibly years. And don’t even get me going on the civil trial where the scum bag sues you for everything yo own, and is ever likely going to own.

Far more likely, however, is that you will miss, and end up seriously injured or dead.

Be psychologically prepared with the intent to kill if you draw your weapon, or don’t carry. Please.

jero_jones, you obviously know very little about the kind of people who carry, applicable laws and training (of both CCH holders and police), and seem to have some serious phobias about firearms as well. I suggest you find someone at a local range and take some training. Perhaps when you have some first-hand knowledge and experience you won’t be so prone to making embarrassing statements.

No worries, it is the start of the weekend. I will look for it off and on. But I do CCW hold, and I wouldn’t shoot to kill … I shoot to maim. Legs are the best, shoulders, but youhave to be careful.

And jero is speaking of the military guys (I am assuming). you learn that in Basic to be on your toes no matter what. Even in comfortable surroundings.

upinak on February 15, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Good for you for having a CCW, but I winced a bit when you said you would shoot for the leg or shoulder. When you’re in a self-defense situation, the adrenaline is pouring into your system, and don’t have time for precision aiming, you need to be going for center mass, always. Otherwise you’re a lot more likely to miss and potentially hit an innocent bystander instead of the attacker.

Just some friendly advice, FWIW.

The ammo was purchased from the same Wisconsin shop that provide the VT shooter with his ammo.

The weapons were obtained locally with a Valid FOID card issued by the State of Illinois. Nobody has claimed to have seen the original application to see how the shooter Steve Kaczmierczek answered the medication question on said application.

So what happens if the shooting starts in the back of the room with everyone focused on something else like the professor in the front of the room? How can you possibly identify a random shooter in a crowded room with no training? I guess you shoot the guy that is wearing the shirt that says “crazy guy with a gun” or just shoot the first person you see shooting. Then you can pray the untrained guy across the room who was dozing off does not shoot you, since you were the first person he saw shooting and always thought you were a unstable.

I’ll play your reindeer game. Let’s take your hypothetical. I get shot by another pistolero after gunning down the potential mass murderer. What’s the damage? Me, an innocent, and the bad guy who is still prevented from killing 10 people and wounding dozens more. That’s a balance sheet society can live with.

The alternative is, I don’t get shot by a good guy. Instead I am, along with everybody else in the room, at the mercy of a guy who’ll gladly kill all of us.

jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 7:14 PM

jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 7:45 PM

Your argument makes no sense. Grow up.

ok, i got too far off on the china tangent. i will post again on guns to look for real clarification. i may be worng, i accept that, and want to know why.

jero_jones on February 15, 2008 at 7:14 PM

We’ve had vermin like you promise that there would be bloodbaths everywhere CCW is permitted and every time a state loosen regulations, yet these wild west style shootouts never happen, which must break your little authoritarian heart.

This the part where I’m rolling my eyes as I type.