Today in gun deaths

01.30.13 - 2:28 pm | Tim Redmond |

(28)

I have friends in the Gun Left, and even a few in the Gun Right, who firmly believe that they have to have a large collection of dangerous weapons so that when the Forces of Repression or the International Socialist Order come marching up to their doors to lock them up in concentration camps, they can fight back for their freedom. Like this, I guess.

Only: The dozen or so rifles in your closet won't do much good up against the US Army, if that's who you fear -- and if you fear the International Socialist Order, relax: You'll get free health care.

But in the meantime, all these guns are doing an awful lot of killing. Teenage inauguration performer shot in Chicago. Five people shot at an office building in Phoenix. Urologist shot in California.

Of course, we all know that the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so: We need armed guards in every office building, and in every urologist's office, and on the streets of Chicago. Wait -- we already have cops in Chicago. And in Oakland. And still.

Comments

A good part of the argument to own and bear arms is precisely to

act as a check on the powers of government. While the US army could easily overrun a "peoples' militia", the fact that the people can theoretically fight back against authority does tend to deter governments who consider using intimidation tot ake away our civil rights.

So I'd categorise the rationale for people being armed as threefold - to protect against foreign invaders, to defend one's family and possessions from criminals and to protect ourselves against our own government,

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 3:00 pm

Armed guards at every school. What could go wrong?

Leaving their guns unattended in a bathroom:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/18/newly-hired-school-guard-leaves-un...

Problem solved without disaster, this time.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

And if that gun had stopped a mass murderer then would you

still be so glib and smug?

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

You like to speculate, don't you?

When did an armed guard at a school stop a mass murderer? The armed guards at Columbine or Virginia Tech didn't stop one.

Why not arm all the children?

I think you are the same fool that said that all airline pilots are armed, but couldn't provide any proof when I cited statistics to show that only a small percentage of pilots are armed.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

Yes, armed guarda serve no purpose which is why every

big business and government uses them. They're all stupid, right?

Posted by anon on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 4:26 pm

No,

but you are.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

Ah, so you now admit a need for armed guards?

We're just quibbling over where they might not be needed.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 8:10 am

And you like to make up

And you like to make up "facts" to support your argument.

There were no armed guards at Virginia Tech or Columbine. In fact, Columbine changed the way police respond to mass shootings. At Columbine, the police who first arrived waited for SWAT to show up to clear the building, which, if the shooters didn't kill themselves could have led the death toll to be over a hundred. After Columbine, the first police who arrive against an active shooter now get into small groups and make entry ASAP.

And during the 2nd part of the shooting at Virginia Tech, Cho shot himself 10 minutes after initially opening fire. That means that had he not shot himself, many more people could have been killed because no armed response (police or security) had arrived to confront him.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

Here are some links to support my made up facts.

Columbine High School:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122412-638251-armed-school-guar...

Virginia Tech:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/21/nra-armed-guards-schools
To be accurate, Virginia Tech had more than an armed guard, it had an armed police force.

I will compare my evidence with yours anytime. All you have are lies, rhetoric, and speculation.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 6:56 pm

Okay. You want proof that

Okay. You want proof that armed guards stop shooters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(1998)

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-10/us/colorado.shootings_1_gunman-securi...

And the Oregon mall shooter was confronted by an armed man, ran away, and then shot himself:

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-18359...

Do you think any of those shooters would have stopped shooting without people with guns stopping them?

The point is is that mass shooters usually do not stop unless confronted with force. Virginia Tech has a police force, yes, but not one of them confronted the shooter. Even your article on the Columbine shooters says that "it was the guard's presence and the resistance he and others offered that kept the carnage less than it might have been." So your article just proved that an armed guard saved lives.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

But your argument (and, with

But your argument (and, with all due respect Eddie, your response) is based on an assumption that the shooters are able to acquire weapons in the first place. You've both let the pro-gun lobby (really, just the NRA) frame the argument in a completely unworkable way. Responsible gun owners, those that are trained and keep their guns in safes--no one is arguing to take your guns away! The point of gun control is to keep convicted felons, mentally unstable, irresponsible people from being able to acquire guns in the first place. The shooters in Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook (and on and on...) used LEGALLY acquired guns--whether because they passed the Federal background check (which in many states like Colorado is the only requirement to purchase a gun) or because they purchased their guns through private transactions that don't require background checks. If there had been protections in place like a waiting period, interview and reference process, and mandatory training to take the guns home, I bet a bunch of these shooters wouldn't have been able to acquire the guns they used. That's the point! Not to take away

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:35 pm

The guns that were obtained

The guns that were obtained in Columbine and Sandy Hook were obtained by the shooters illegally. The Columbine shooters obtained their guns through straw purchases. The Sandy Hook shooter killed his mother to get her weapons.

It's a Catch-22. Law-abiding citizens need firearms to protect themselves (unless you can give me a way that a 120 LB. woman can defend herself against a 200 LB. man). But the mentally ill and felons don't care about laws and are willing to steal and kill to get more weapons.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:21 pm

In none of your examples did the armed

guards prevent a shooting, which is the argument that the NRA posits for placing armed guards at every school.

Of course, an armed person can shoot another armed person. So what?

Thanks to the other "Guest" for the "due respect."

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:45 pm

You can't PREVENT any

You can't PREVENT any shooting. Unless you want to lock up every single person who is insane, racist, or just plain pissed off. The only thing you can do is limit the damage they do.

There is no prevention for human instability.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

Refer to the above "Guest"s comment

about limiting the availablility of guns as a way to limit the damage people can do to each other. Not all mass shooters are insane, racist, or just pissed off.

I'm done on this topic as we will just continue to argue in circles. More violence is not the solution to end violence.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 11:45 pm

Your PROOF backfires on your point

Did you actually read those articles? They actually support the need and benefit for armed citizens or guards. Both articles show that countless lives were saved by having a good guy there with a gun. Now I am confused as to your point. I would suggest getting educated on firearms and the stats that prove liberals and their fear of the scary black gun is ignorance.

Posted by jcb on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 10:19 am

First off, I am not a liberal.

My point is that armed guards at schools will create more problems than they will solve with no assurance that they will prevent killings. And I was correcting misinfomation that there were no armed guards or police at Columbine or Virginia Tech, when in fact there were.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 10:36 am

Would you be so dismissive and arrogant

if a schoolchild had found the gun first and shot himself or another student with it?

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:26 pm

You still gloss over the fact

You still gloss over the fact that you just proved my point that properly trained guards and citizens do save lives. That person who left his weapon unattended screwed up. If a kid had died because of it, he would be responsible and go to prison. People make mistakes and if someone gets hurt they need to pay the consequences for their negligence.

And yet, as anon said, major businesses, government buildings, and politicians all have armed guards. You're response? "You're (anon) stupid."

You don't like guns. Okay. But as much as you might wish it, they're not going away. I bet you don't know any person who has a CCW. I do. They have to go a lot of certification in order to get it. They also have to be rechecked frequently. I'd actually much rather have them watching my back then most cops.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:44 pm

One more thing. The gun that

One more thing. The gun that you cite in your article was UNLOADED. In order for a child to shoot another student, s(he) would have had to somehow be carrying the same caliber round that the gun fired.

Yup. A kid decides one day "I'm going to carry a 9 mm (or .45, or .22, or .380) round to school because I might find a gun and will put it in so I might be able to shoot myself or a classmate."

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 10:49 pm

That was good fortune that the

gun was unloaded. Put armed guards at every school and eventually one of them will forget or lose a loaded gun with deadly consequences. Or will kill someone with that gun out of anger or derangement.

I agree my response to "anon" was not useful, but I'm sure that he brings out the worst in many people (isn't that why he's a constant presence here?) and I have a weakness for a good set up.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 11:03 pm

You keep overlooking the

You keep overlooking the point that YOU made. That armed guards do NOT help against mass shootings. In every instance you've (and I've) cited, armed guards saved lives.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 11:31 pm

In my above comment, I used the word "stop"

which has several meanings, hence the ambiguity.

I meant it to mean prevent (which is the world I should have used.) You interpreted it as to stop a killer as in to kill a killer.

Sorry for the inexact writing and subsequent confusion. Our differing interpretations reflect our different viewpoints.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 2:47 pm

Remind me when that ever

Remind me when that ever happened? Ohhh right, NEVER.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 12:28 am

all these guns are doing an awful lot of killing

Guns can kill on their own? Really?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 8:46 pm