HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

Person starts shooting in a crowded hallway, 20 people pull out their pistol, Person A shoots the killer. Person B (and anyone else who had their back to the shot), now sees Person A shooting someone, and shoots Person A. Another person (and how ever many have come on scene, or who missed the initially 5 seconds or so) sees two people shooting and starts shooting...another person sees 2 people dead, person X advancing towards him (who is just trying to get away, but with his gun drawn), and flees, shooting over his shoulder....another person, unrelated to A,B and X, has gun pistol drawn while retreating backwards into a classroom...he hears clicks behind him and spins...his gun spins with him...pointing towards the armed and panicing students...he gets shot...etc etc etc.

Quote:

School shootings haven't happened in Australia yet,
and over here concealed weapons aren't allowed to be carried
(except for specialised work purposes). The gun culture here is nowhere near
as ingrained as in the US.

Sorry.
There is still time to improve your gun culture.
That culture is one of rugged individualism and personal freedom.

Quote:

It could easily be argued that thanks to the lesser nature of our gun culture,
we are in fact, safer, than in countries that advocate everyone to carry one.

Yes; it was easily argued that heavier than air craft
can never fly, and that the earth was flat,
with the sun revolving around it,,
and that communism will conquer the world
Q.E.D.: anything can be argued, no matter how rong it is.

You are an apostle of HELPLESSNESS;
of the victims being unable to harm the bad guys who prey upon them.

Quote:

I only threw up a scenario.

I know; it is only your imagination.
What u described has never happened anywhere in the world.

Quote:

Whether or not you want to believe in the possibility or not,
is up to you.

I know.
I don 't believe it.
David

Quote:

I kind of see the possibilities of occurence that vikorr stated.
"The fog of war" accounts for as many friendly fire accidents
to validate his(or her) opinion.

If war were really that foggy,
then war 'd be IMPOSSIBLE, in that armies 'd commit suicide
when combat began ( if it were as he suggests in his scenario ).
Tho we have suffered a very saddening number
of friendly fire casualities, the dispassionate statistics
wud show a lopsided ratio of enemy casualties compared to friendly fire losses.

Quote:

Everyone armed can have more serious consequences than a single perp
in a country such as ours where a quite healthy "gun culture" is a reality.

Even if we were to assume that,
for the sake of argument, the fact remains that when the fox gets into the chicken coop,
thay r not equipped to fight back, and pay with their lives,
for that insufficiency.
The students in Columbine, or in V.T. were seated at their desks
when a killer entered their classroom and opened up on them.
Thay had a right to fight back,
but thay did not have the necessary emergency equipment to do so,
and that cost them their lives.

When the killer started shooting at the seated students,
if even 5 or 10 of them shot back at him, the emergency 'd be over immediately.
Because of gun control, because the killer had a monopoly of lethal power,
the massacer went on for a long time.

Quote:

Im a gun owner and have never sought a "carry " permit in my state.

Forgive me for being trite,
but it really IS better to have a gun and not need it
than to need a gun and not have it.

Its like walking around all the time with no health insurance,
which may be OK for years, but possibly u will eventually need coverage,
whether from getting hit by a car, or getting a heart attack.

Meaning no disrespect, saying:
" Im a gun owner but I never carrry one "
is like saying :
" I 'm a car owner, but I never carry a spare tire; I just hope for the best. "

Quote:

When in foreign countries on mining projects we are most often accompanied by soldiers
that are armed and serve as our protection
(mostly from bandits and , in some cases guerillas).

Chances are u 'll probably be OK.
Good luck with that.

Quote:

Since this a discussion in which Youve laid down the ground rules,
you obviously will not, for a momemnt consider the possibility of vikorrs scenario.

1 ) I am an open minded person.

2 ) It does no harm to consider anything, including that.
We can even consider going back on the gold standard,
but what r the chances ?

Quote:

I think you should stop, and think a bit.

OK.

Quote:

Arming all the kids and teachers

I suggest that thay arm THEMSELVES ( as I did )
and the same way that thay provide their own pens and paper.

Quote:

with 500 dollar pistols

I believe thay 'd be better off with . 44 special revolvers

Quote:

in a 30000 person campus can buy a lot more security than you propose by "taking up the gun".
Ive taught at an Ivy League and , believe me, there are a number of kids
in my classes alone that I wouldnt trust with a water pistol, let alone a 9mm.

Professor, do u REALLY believe
that if one of them actually DECIDES to run amuk, wreaking armed havoc,
that he will not be ABLE to, because of a law or because of a school rule ?
In my humble opinion,
dealing with that problem effectively requires FORGETTING about inanimate objects
and removing DANGEROUS PEOPLE with demonstrably bad histories
from contact with polite society ( be that in prisons, or in banishment
from this Continent, behind 1000s of miles of water ).

Quote:

I see only the fact that, no longer would traffic accidents be the number one slayer of kids under 25,
it would gradually shift to gun accidents .

I suggest that your theory has been disproven by a little less
than 20 years of experience of freedom to carry in 40 of the 50 states
( beginning with Florida in 1987 ). The problem to which u refer
has not manifested therein; indeed, none of those staates
has ever changed its mind and reverted to gun control.
Indeed, Vermont has NEVER had ANY gun laws,
and it has not endured the accident related carnage which u suggested.
A few years ago, Alaska repealled ALL of its gun laws,
with no ill effects.

In candor and good faith,
will u agree that this actual EXPERIENCE of several years' duration
disproves your theory, Professor ?

Quote:

Now, I suppose your packaged query
is that have I any data to support my belief?.
Look into the mirror David, ask yourself the same question..

OK.
The answer to that question
is set forth hereinabove ( q.v. )

Quote:

Stop the bumnper stickering

U demand that I strip my bumpers ?

Quote:

(I never asked whether you have any financial interests in guns or Ammo?)

My interest is predominantly ideological,
in that a well-armed society tends to be more ruggedly individualistic,
anti-collectivistic, l'aissez faire free market and libertarian, hedonistic.

My gun collection is humble and modest,
to which I add out of esthetics and historical interest.
My security needs have already been well taken care of since my childhood
David

I kind of see the possibilities of occurence that vikorr stated. "The fog of war" accounts for as many friendly fire accidents to validate his(or her) opinion. Everyone armed can have more serious consequences than a single perp in a country such as ours where a quite healthy "gun culture" is a reality. Im a gun owner and have never sought a "carry " permit in my state. When in foreign countries on mining projects we are most often accompanied by soldiers that are armed and serve as our protection (mostly from bandits and , in some cases guerillas).

Since this a discussion in which Youve laid down the ground rules, you obviously will not, for a momemnt consider the possibility of vikorrs scenario.
I think you should stop, and think a bit. Arming all the kids and teachers with 500 dollar pistols in a 30000 person campus can buy a lot more security than you propose by "taking up the gun".
Ive taught at an Ivy League and , believe me, there are a number of kids in my classes alone that I wouldnt trust with a water pistol, let alone a 9mm.

I see only the fact that, no longer would traffic accidents be the number one slayer of kids under 25, it would gradually shift to gun accidents .

Now, I suppose your packaged query is that have I any data to support my belief?. Look into the mirror David, ask yourself the same question..

Stop the bumnper stickering (I never asked whether you have any financial interests in guns or Ammo?)

That culture is one of rugged individualism

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

David, you seem to dismiss the "fog factor" in combat.

No, Professor Farmer.

I don 't dismiss the fog of war.
I acknowledge its occurance, thru out history.
I know how Stonewall Jackson met his end
and how Corporal Pat Tillman did.

However, we are being urged by Vik
to reject the philosophy of being defensivel prepared for such a threat to life
as we saw at V.T. and at Columbine ( in favor of the docile helplessness that actually existed )
on grounds that the victims of criminals who shoot students,
seated in their classrooms,
will turn their guns on themselves, instead of the murderer.
Therefore, we shud just " Cast our fate to the winds... " and take our chances.

This defies common sense, and promotes a suicidal passivity and helplessness,
such as what actually happened in those schools.
I reject that passivity.

Each citizen has a natural right, and a constitutional right,
and in Virginia, a statutory right to defend his life if he is attacked by a murderer in school.
This was and is the law of Virginia.
( I believe that Virginia has both open carry, and licensed concealed carry. )

However, people who oppose the right to defend your life from murderers
were in control of the Administration of Virginia Tech, and it intimidated,
and terrorized its students and employees away from exercising their
ritghts to self defense, so that when Cho opened up on them,
HE was the only person who was safe, because sadly all of the students
and all of the facutly OBEYED the school rule.
The school is guilty of both criminal negligence and tortious negligence.
I hope that this litigation will proceed; thay shud NOT get away with it.

If students are seated in class, listening to their teacher,
when a murderer enters the classroom and opens up on them, as Cho did,
the fog of war on the battlefield wud NOT BE PRESENT IN THE CLASSROOM.
It wud be painfully obvious who the target of their defensive hostility shud be.
If only 3 of the students, or 5, or 7 of them turned defensive gunfire
upon the misanthrope, his life wud reach a quick end,
and his malicious gunfire wud end even sooner.
( If I remember accurately, Cho had time to reload a new magazine;
being unopposed, in the face of helpless and docile students,
who were unfortunately obeying the school rule against guns.
The penalty for that obedience was DEATH. )

Quote:

I sport a number of wounds including a useless left hand,
a dimmed eye,shrapnel in key nerve junctions, and a permanent tinnitus,
all from a bunch of soldiers who escalated a disagreement with villagers
into a "firefight" It was later found out that the entire event was
precipitated by some schlub conscript who wanted to try out his full auto.

As regretable as your injuries are,
wud u approach the military and advise them that because of these errors
and the fog of war, that henceforth thay shud go about the business of
warfare, and active combat in an unarmed condition,
because thay will turn their guns on one another, instead of against the enemy ?

Shud our armed forces have adopted this philosophy of unilateral
disarmament during the Revolutionary War ? Wud u urge that upon George Washington ?

Shud our armed forces have adopted this philosophy of unilateral
disarmament during the Civil War ? Wud u urge that upon Lincoln ?

Shud our armed forces have adopted this philosophy of unilateral
disarmament during the Civil War ? Wud u urge that upon Lincoln ?

Shud our armed forces have adopted this philosophy of unilateral
disarmament against the Germans and Japs during the first 2 world wars ?

The reasonable solution is to reduce the fog of war, to some extent,
thru more and better TRAINING.

I have no objection to students, from the earliest grades,
being given hands-on self defense training, along with their study of arithmetic.

Quote:

Gun manufacturers in the US, have no stake in ending the gun culture and the taking up sides that it precipitates.

So, according to YOU, gun manufacturers SHUD endeavor to end
the gun culture ? Thay have an OBLIGATION to do that ?
An obligation that I, as an ordinary citizen, do not have,
but the gun manufacturers for some reason HAVE that duty ??
What is the SOURCE and ORIGIN of this duty ?

This is like complaining that the manufacturers of voting machines
have no stake in ending democracy or free elections.

Quote:

However, arming a student body is about as lame an idea as youve come up with.

U know, Professor, during the Columbine massacer,
some students locked themselves into a closet where folding metal chairs
were stored. In their DESPERATION to defend their lives,
thay were taking the chairs to use as clubs against the murderers,
if confronted by them; ( one of them was trying to force open the door ).
Do u believe that there is any chance that those students, armed with CHAIRS,
wud have preferred to be armed with guns ?

Please tell me your opinion on this point.

Do u think thay 'd vu U as their friend, or their enemy, Professor Farmer ?
a 5th Columnist, so to speak ?

As the students were being shot, one by one,
do u think that thay craved and yearned to have guns in their hands ??

Quote:

I get down to U o Vt frequently during summers.

I take it that Vt means Vermont not Virginia Tech

Quote:

I know that the U tacitly discourages guns in cars during hunting seasons
(mostly because of the increase in break0-ins and snatch n grabs (guns being the target booty).

I don 't mind anyone, including any universtity, having any opinion,
however looney it may be, as long as thay don ' t ACT
on the basis of it to scare citizens out of exercising their rights,
as the Administration of Virginia Tech did,
resulting in the mass slaughter of those who cowered before the school 's
threat of expulsion, and acquiesced to its will.
What 'd u say, Professor Farmer, if the school frightened the students
out of exercising their right to vote ?


Can we agree
that if people scare voters away from the polls at election time, that is bad ?

It is ineffably WORSE to scare citizens out of their right to defend their lives from violent depredations.

Quote:

You havent successfully countered vikorrs excellent scenario.

I disagree.
I pointed out that there has never been any situation
wherein a murderer entered a classroom, began shooting at the seated students
and the victims then turned their guns on one another.
This is unheard of and is dissimilar from the fog of war on the battlefield,
where conditions may be less obvious than in a classroom,
as in Virginia Tech or Colombine, as the murderers went from one
unarmed student to the next, murdering him or her.
I earnestly wish that one of the victims had pulled out a gun,
in violation of the rules, and/or the law,
and shot the murderers at V.T. and at Columbine.
There was a death penalty for obeying the law, or the school rules.
I guess u think it was WORTH it, in that the gun control law was obeyed.
I disagree.

In any case, the right to defend your life
IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, that was violated by the law of Colorado
and the school rule of V.T.

Quote:

The fact that friendly fire incidents occur frequently
(more and more have been discovered from WWII archives).
Usually the adreneline rush is responsible and people rarely think
rationally during high stress. So I can see vikorrs scene playing out
and even more carnage is the result.

U can see it ONLY in your imagination,
since this has never happened in the history of the World.
U might as well imagine the Easter Bunny.

Quote:

With all the guns you propose, I say lets beef up school security
with extra campus police who are trained as cops, not shift watchmen.

I am put in mind of civil litigation against a residential guard service
that had bragged of its aggressive protection. When one of its customers
had a burglary, including a rape in her house,
the guards were too cowardly to enter the house; thay just waited outside,
like the cowards on the Colorado Police Force,
who did the same thing, as students and faculty were LITERALLY BLEEDING TO DEATH INSIDE.
Thay remained safe outside, for hours and hours; remember ?
Just like Reginald Denny in L.A.
From Kitty Genovese, in N.Y.C., to Reginald Denny in L.A.,
citizens have found out the hard way that police can be away
for a long time when you need them.
Should your life depend on other people who are not around?

Quote:

To overturn campus life by turning schools into armed camps
is just stupid and Paleo culturish.

The absence of any interference with any student arming himself
with any handgun of his choice wud not overturn campus life.
I have empirical evidence of this, to wit:
a few decades ago, we were required to render a " show and tell "
presentation in our English class. I chose to bring in and field strip
a .30 caliber M-1 Carbine. I got a good grade.
I carried it around in school, with no ill effects.
Nothing was overturned.
I simply advocate a l'aissez faire academic approach to arming in personal defense.
After the First World War, the US Director of Civilian Marksmanship
encouraged gunnery practice in school rifle teams.
( However, rifles r too bulky to carry around much. )

I choose the paleoculture wherein America began
in the late 1700s, in which everyone was expected to defend himself,
and to possess the necessary equipment therefor.
I prefer the l'aissez faire spirit of liberty inherent therein.

Quote:

V Tech brought out a flaw in the system . Therfore the system needs tweking, not dumping .

The flaw is that the students were intimidated
out of exercising their constitutional and their statutory rights,
by a school policy of criminal negligence, and tortious negligence, resulting in mass death.
Tweak that.

Quote:

Viz, in Somalia, just about everyone is armed, wanna live in that world?

No.

I don 't wanna go to Africa.
I wanna live in an America with the same freedom
that it had in the 1700s, when it began.

Note, incidentally, that in Vermont, there have never been any gun laws,
and it is very, very peaceful, without the citizens turning their guns
on one another. Consistently, year after year and decade after decade,
Vermont is among the very SAFEST states, with the least crime on the FBI's annual list.
Q.E.D.:
Vik 's scenario is full of baloney !
David

Quote:

That culture is one of rugged individualism

Vikorr wrote:

Quote:

From my perspective, one the silliest reasons I've ever heard
for carrying a gun "It looks cool", or perhaps "I look macho".

Rugged individualism refers to the freedom that results
from having a government that is domesticly weak, feeble and crippled.
When government was created in America,
after the English Monarchy was thrown out,
we decided that this was the kind of government that we wanted:
a politically and economically non-interfering government.
We chose to live in a l' aissez faire free market environment,
both politically and economically.
Government was very small and weak;
it was thought of as being like a little sparrow fart.

In my opinion, a shy little flatulent sparrow
shud have been added to the American Flag, representing government,
bashfully hiding, unobtrusively in one corner.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to weaken and cripple government
37 different ways.

Quote:

By the way, are you aware that you are advocating giving guns to people
who are physiologically incapable of making fully informed/rational
decisions, especially under stress?

I am not aware of that.

I do not advocate giving ANYONE anything; ( maybe food, in extreme cases ).
I advocate that everyone attend to his OWN personal defensive armament,
just as I did.

Quote:

(people under the age of somewhere between 21-25years of Age).
The operative word in that sentence by the way is 'fully'.

Maybe u believe that only such as Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein
have the right to defend their lives from the violence of criminals or animals ?

Everyone has the natural right
( and in America, the constitutional right ) of self defense.

When I was 8 years old,
I left New York City and went to Arizona.
My neighbors were well armed, including kids older and younger than I was.
While playing poker, I won a 2 inch .38 revolver, which I chose to carry with me,
until years later, when I upgraded to a .44 special revolver for better stopping power.
During the 5 years and one day that I resided there,
peace prevailed. There were no complainst of any person
of any age displaying bad manners with firearms.
During that time, I never saw the police arrive in the area with lights and sirens on.

This disproves your thesis.

Quote:

And as everyone is allowed to carry a gun because it's cool,

U don 't get the concept.
It is not a question of being " ALLOWED ".
It is that the citizens, who CREATED government,
the citizens who deigned, stooped and condescended to give government permission to exist
never relinquished their right to carry guns to the discretion of government, their little child,
and thay went out of their way to disable government from interfering.

Thay consciously made sure that thay 'd keep their gus,
predominantly for the following reasons:
1 ) thay needed guns for protection from predatory violence;
( indeed, in Colonial times, it was against the law to attend church, in an unarmed condition.
The clergymen checked to make sure the congregants were well armed ).

2 ) Thay knew that thay might need those guns to overthrow that government,
as thay just got finished doing with the last government.
Thay were not shy about saying this openly, and did so.


According to the US Constitution,
the instrument that CONSTITUTES government in America,
government is not allowed to interfere with this,
and government can only do so by USURPATION of ultra vires activity,
with only the authority of a schoolyard bully
or with the same authority as a bank teller to secretly stuff some cash
down his pants when he leaves for the day.

Quote:

Let them be judged by their CONDUCT,
regardless of any drugs. If thay commit criminal violence,
then let them be incarcerated, killed, or BANISHED.
Maybe u 'll rent us some space in Botany Bay Colony ?
If not, we can find somewhere else.

Quote:

What a thought...stupid fearful people doing drugs and carrying guns...

If thay remain peaceful, there will be no problem.
If thay DON 'T, then we will address that after thay have become guilty of it.
I detect very, very little love of nor demand of personal liberty
in your posts. I get the impression that its OK with u,
if your government does whatever it dam well pleases with u;
that u belong to it.
We rejected that concept when we threw the English Monarchy out of America.
( Do what u want; or what your government wants. )

Quote:

maybe we can add suicidal people into the mix as well, and the mentally ill...hmmm...
after all, it's all about rugged individuality and personal freedom.

AGREED.

Everyone has the right to end his life at any time of his own choosing,
by whatever means he selects, as long as he does not violate
the rights of others ( e.g., by jumping from a hi window onto pedestrians in the street ).

Quote:

The gun lobby does have some valid points, and at times
(very very rare times), it would be handy to have a gun...but I have never
seen them advocate the training required (in law and crisis situations)
needed to help people make properly informed decisions on when to
shoot (yes there will be times when it's very clear cut,

Since we have compulsory education anyway,
I see no reason againt training the safe, accurate and legal handling
of guns in class, along with studying geografy and math.

Quote:

but there will also be times when it will result in a murder charge against the person 'defending himself/herself')

Then let us adjust the law ( CASTLE DOCTRINE ) to make sure
that does not happen.

Quote:

...and to be able to shoot properly when and if they do need to shoot. Of course, as there is no big gun lobby in Australia (and not seeing American news all that much), perhaps they do do this and I just haven't noticed it.

perhaps

David

wud u approach the military and advise them that because of these errors
and the fog of war, that henceforth thay shud go about the business of
warfare, and active combat in an unarmed condition,
because thay will turn their guns on one another, instead of against the enemy ?

Quote:

wud u approach the military and advise them that because of these errors
and the fog of war, that henceforth thay shud go about the business of
warfare, and active combat in an unarmed condition,
because thay will turn their guns on one another, instead of against the enemy ?

Farmerman wrote :

Quote:

There was absolutely no reason for the event to even have occured.

I believe u.

Quote:

My report later, to the NIgerian ministry was that the entire event,
where soldiers turned and shot their own countrymen for apercieved "threat" ws insanity.

I surmise then that the US Army was not involved ?
It was the Nigerian army ?

Quote:

Using Cho as an example misses the point that vikoor made.

HOW ??

Quote:

If everyone were arnmed ,
maybe cho would have been a casualty but there also would have been others.

I agree with u.

When he entered the classroom,
reasonable, seated students were not going to harm him
BEFORE he became violent.
It wud have taken a moment for them to understand
the situation when he opened up on them, and mount their defenses.
Until thay cud blast him, u r correct in saying that there 'd be
innocent casualties; just NOT AS MANY as there were
since thay cud NOT mount a disabling counterattack,
since thay were in compliance with the school 's unilateral disarmament rule.
Armed students wud not have let cho re-load in a new magazine.
Unarmed students DID let him do that.

Quote:

The real event was that campus security had ample warning about 2 hours earlier and acted on a lame presumption that the perp "left the area" That was totally poor police work. Maybe becuase VPI (v TEch) had "rent a cops" not well trained campus security like a number of other campuses do. Columbine also had ample footprints on the "trenchcoaters" As did the hijackers on 9/11.

For the entire duration of the existence of our species,
human error, of every kind, has been our constant companion.
We will not live to see the end of human error, in anything.
No surprize.

Quote:

We have to effect a better security system all around.

Pipedream ??

Its a tall order to make an area safe 24/7,
month after month, decade after decade.
A misanthrope need only poke a hole thru
for a few minutes to get his job done.
It is inconsistent with basic human nature
to maintain an alert status for every minute of every year.

Quote:

Youre trying to set up a debate with rules that dont allow youre entire proposition
to be challenged in your mind. Therefore its a bit one sided.

I don 't understand what u said ???

What rules ?
Did I enact rules ?

Quote:

As I said, Im a gun owner and arming the populace is lame, very lame.

I require only a l'aissez faire freedom to make the necessary
arrangements for self defense. I did not advocate arming anyone.
Let them get their own armament,
the same way they get their own shoes n sox; just don 't interfere.

Quote:

I sure wouldnt want a gunfight at 30000 feet.

No one wants a gunfight, anywhere.

Quote:

(But I would feel safe with 2 marshalls on board).
BTW when are all the recommended security measures from 9/11
going to be fully implememnted, after Bush is out?

Your guess is as good as mine.
Bush is AGAINST arming the pilots,
interfering with the law that requires this to happen.
He has hired anti-gun people to sabotage arming pilots.
Very, very few pilots are armed, thanx to W.
He agrees with YOU.
DAVID