Wednesday, September 29, 2010

University of Texas Shooting

I read about this last night on The Truth About Guns.  Brad Kozak was extremely prescient when he said, "I’m waiting to hear the words “assault rifle” in the next round of reports over this idiot."  Here's what Yahoo News has this morning.
A student wearing a dark suit and a ski mask opened fire Tuesday with an assault rifle on the University of Texas campus before fleeing into a library and fatally shooting himself. No one else was hurt.
I certainly don't want to take anything away from Brad, but now that I think about it, anyone could have predicted that. In fact, the gun turned out to be an AK-47, which I think is understood to be an "assault rifle," even if it's the semi-auto version often found in the States. So, I'm not sure what his point was.

The TTAG analysis goes on to basically repeat the same old pro-gun responses to these incidents. First there's the old "violence IS inevitable," which means the gun is just a tool and eliminating it won't solve the problem. I never understood how rational people can believe that. Compared to guns, knives and bats are less likely to be lethal and much less likely to harm multiple victims.

Then there's the statistics game. I'm sure if pressed the author of this statement can back it up, and then someone on the gun control side could produce an opposing piece of "proof." I call that the statistics game.

Statistics prove that states where citizens can legally carry have lower crime rates than states where it is difficult or impossible to get a gun.
Finally there's the solution:

...every citizen over the age of 21 who is not a convicted felon or judged to be mentally ill must take a gun safety class where they learn how to shoot and safely handle a gun.
At first I thought it was the old arm-everybody-for-protection thing, but Brad was making another point altogether.

At least that way, when some idiot starts ranting about how we should make the entire country a gun-free zone, they will have had the benefit of having shot a gun in practice, and not leave their knowledge of guns to stem from reruns of Starsky and Hutch. Just sayin.’
He wasn't saying what I thought at all. He's just taking a swipe at the gun control folks whom he thinks know nothing at all about guns. If they'd only avail themselves of the experience of shooting a real live gun, they'd change their minds.

I really don't know what to say to that, except I don't think so.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

34 comments:

  1. > I really don't know what to say to that, except I don't think so.

    Same here.

    (Pictured: the solution to Mexico's gun violence)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike, any weapon, tool, or item can be very lethal to any number of people in the right or wrong hands. In other words someone who is skilled enough can use a knife to inflict more damage, or kill as many people. To which brings me to a sadistic point. While a knife or baseball bat is "likely" less lethal and harmful to multiple victims, they can do substantial damage, in regards to brain damage, disfiguring scars, or crippling a person for life.

    What is of more concern to me than the gun, or where this person got it, is why did this person do what he did? What set him off? What drove him to pick up that gun and use it as he did?

    As for you not understanding why eliminating guns will not solve the problem, well, I guess I can only point to Prohibition, and the war on drugs. Both sought to eliminate the cause of health and societal ills, and both failed, as drugs and alcohol were still in use. Banning guns will have the same effect, people will still have them, and use them, the only question will be who will use them. Those who will willing break the law, until it is repealed.

    Brad is making a good point, in theory. Everyone over the age of 21, must take a gun safety class, thus learning how to handle and use a gun safely. In truth, some people will take this class, and never pick a gun up again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brad is making a good point, in theory. Everyone over the age of 21, must take a gun safety class, thus learning how to handle and use a gun safely. In truth, some people will take this class, and never pick a gun up again. Then again those who do pick up a gun again will know how to properly use it. A double edge sword, if someone becomes unstable.

    As to if someone would change their mind about a gun after shooting one, I cannot say. Sure you will have some people who are gun control supporters change their minds, but you might also have people who are pro-gun or are gun-neutral change their minds or form their own opinion based on what they have learned from the class, instead of television shows, movies, and video games, which guns and violence are glorified.

    As I said a while back, to solve gun violence, and violence in general you must first start with the human condition. By resolving the whys of why a person uses a gun, you resolve the need for a gun. Just saying that as the world progressively gets worse, and people feel more confined and trapped by their problems, the more likely they are to pick up a gun (or any other weapon) and use it. Just as they are more likely to turn to drugs or alcohol for escape.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "If they'd only avail themselves of the experience of shooting a real live gun, they'd change their minds."

    Actually that is true. Most anti-gunners just have an irrational fear of an inanimate object because they do not know or understand guns.

    I have converted three anti-gunners myself just by taking them to the range. We argued about gun control until I convinced them that they had no leg to stand on if they had never handled a gun and they reluctantly agreed. Once they realized that guns were just a tool, they quit being tools themselves.

    One was shaking so much she almost cried at the thought of touching an evil totem. When the afternoon was over, she was asking what kind of ammo she should buy for next time and where to get it.

    Ever notice that when an open minded reporter does a news story on guns, ccw training, etc. that they tend to have a more neutral or some slightly pro-gun slant if the reporter was encouraged to participate?

    An old police chief explained that to me a few years ago. There was a press conference at the police range about the local SWAT team getting new MP-5s. I asked why he was encouraging, to the point of being insistent, the reporters to shoot them. He told me that "most reporters are young, inexperienced and trained by newsrooms and colleges to be anti-police and anti-gun. By encouraging them to participate, it removes some of the mystery and fear."

    The local media had been kind of against the acquisition of assault weapons by the police before the press conference. Nearly every radio and newspaper account following were either pro-police or just plain neutral and factual.

    That old police chief also said "I mean really, who doesn't like firing a machine gun?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. John is merely rehashing the same old nonsense.

    First, it's simply untrue that a kife or a bat can inflict the same amount of damage as a gun. I really don't care if you're the most skilled knife master that ever lived--you're not going to able to kill someone (or a number of people) from 30 yards away. You're not going to be able kill someone who is driving in their car or who is behind a window in his home. What's more, if I'm the knifemaster, I'm going to have to get up close and personal with my victim(s). This presents a number of problems to me such as I am now exposing myself to witnesses and the very real fact that my victim may overpower me. Somebody with a gun, from a place of concealment, has no such worries.

    Second, nobody is calling for the elimination of all guns. No one ever has.

    Third, gun safety classes are all fine and dandy. However, as administered by the NRA--nobody ever fails. And frankly, most NRA certified trainers are Darwinism waiting to happen.

    Fourth, WRT prohibition (I intend to post about this soon)--gunloons always point to prohibition as a massive failure. In reality, it really wasn't. Despite the fact Prohibition laws were extremely flawed and almost designed not to work--Prohibition did accomplish a lot of what it set out to do.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FWM's heartwarming anecdote brings up a story of mine.

    When I lived in another state, my next door neighbor was a huge gunloon. He was married with two young daughters. He had the NRA bumperstickers on the F-150 and the family Ford sedan. He'd carry his gym gear in his NRA tote bag. He had the NRA ballcap and windbreaker.

    Anyway. We were always yakking it up about guns. We were talking about DGUs and the whole Kleck fraud of 2.5M gun uses. He was defending Kleck with the usual arguments, so I asked him how many DGUs he'd had in the last year or in the last several years. He responded that he has a DGU every single day since his guns provided protection against potential crimes.

    His wife was nearby and I think she snorted at this. So, I asked him how many guns he had to prevent these potential DGUs. He said he owned 9 handguns and proceeded to list the makes and models. I asked why he needed 9 when he only had two hands. I then noticed his wife was taking a real interest in the conversation. He said he needed 9 because he had them located strategically around his home so if the event of an emergency, no matter where he wass--he was only a dozen feet or so away from a gun.

    Well, apparently the wife didn't know this and had no idea hubby had 9 and that they were all over the house. So, she engaged with the underlying tone of 'you've got some 'splainin' to do.'

    Long story short: she demanded she show her where all the guns were. She'd been under the impression that hubby had 3 guns--one in bedroom table drawer and 2 he kept in the den in a small safe. Well, hubby tookk her on the guided tour but was only able to find 7.

    As Scooby Doo might say, "Ruh roh."

    Hubby had lost or misplaced 2 guns. Wifey made hubby get rid of all his guns except a hunting rifle.

    Didn't see him wearing NRA gear anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "In fact, the gun turned out to be an AK-47, which I think is understood to be an "assault rifle," even if it's the semi-auto version often found in the States. So, I'm not sure what his point was."

    Well, unless it was an ACTUAL "AK-47" or fully-automatic variant that could be switched from fully-automatic to semi-automatic, it isn't an "assault rifle."

    So, his point was that assault rifles are defined as a selective fire rifles that use an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. The imported AK clones that are sold in the US are not select fire. They can only be sold as semi-automatic, not fully automatic. Unless this was an NFA registered fully-automatic weapon imported before 1986, (or an illegally converted semi-auto) it was not an assault rifle.

    The distinction is comparable to clips vs. magazines. There is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mikey W: Actually, the trick many gunloons use WRT assault weapons is to make up their own definition which is always at variance with the law's definition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Compared to guns, knives and bats are less likely to be lethal and much less likely to harm multiple victims."

    From a distance. Don't forget that part. Firearms allow distance to be used to your advantage.

    And yes, your statement is generally true, which is why we prefer guns to knives or bats to defend ourselves. They also require less physical strength, and dexterity, to wield.

    Guns are the pinnacle of achievement in personal arms.

    So, what was you point? That the bad guys, if they can't get a gun, won't harm as many people? Really, so harming just a few is better?

    And they couldn't build a bomb, and blow up a building to kill people?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

    Or use their car and mow down people.
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/CHICK+TELLS+OF+HIS+NARROW+ESCAPE+AS+MAD+CAR+DRIVER+MOWS+DOWN+150...-a060561171

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2005/0922/world/one-dead-13-hurt-as-motorist-mows-down-las-vegas-crowd-222085.html

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/car-driven-into-crowd/2007/06/22/1182019321301.html?s_cid=rss_age


    Yep, they're pretty much limited to guns or close contact weaponry. Because all violence requires either a gun or a knife, right? Otherwise, it doesn't count?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Actually, the trick many gunloons use WRT assault weapons is to make up their own definition which is always at variance with the law's definition."

    No, Jadefool, that's your side's trick. Change the definition, or intentionally muddy the definitions, or make up words until people think that all guns are "assault weapons" even though no such thing ever existed.


    Assualt rifles have a clear definition. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's on you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I just love this statement, by sniveling anti-self-defense crybaby John Woods:

    "I'd just point out that the only person who's been killed has been the shooter," Woods told the Tribune. "I think the situation might be a lot more chaotic and a lot more deadly if a number of students had tried to go in and be heroes." Ultimately, he said, the system worked.

    Um . . . "the system worked"? Are we to infer, then, that "the system" is to hope that the freaked-out degenerate decides, in the end, not to take anyone along with him in his blaze of . . . whatever that's a blaze of?

    That's not a "system" in which I'm inclined to put much faith--I much prefer my system of taking responsibility for my own security.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stop lying, Jade.

    Even the law can't agree on the definition of an assault weapon. The definition differs from federal to state level and from state to state. Even the gun banners continuously redefine it to include more weapons.

    ReplyDelete
  13. MikeB: “In fact, the gun turned out to be an AK-47, which I think is understood to be an "assault rifle,"

    That is “misunderstood” to be an AK-47 assault rifle.

    Jade: “John is merely rehashing the same old nonsense. First, it's simply untrue that a kife or a bat can inflict the same amount of damage as a gun.”

    Actually it can inflict more. An edged weapon can behead someone- try doing that with a gun. That doesn’t mean a gun doesn’t have other major advantages, particularly regarding multiple victims, which John in fact said, but you seemed to ignore by pretending he is claiming a knife is just as good as a gun. If that were the case, we’d all be happy with concealed knife permits.

    Jade: “Second, nobody is calling for the elimination of all guns. No one ever has.”

    It is important to look at the end of the gun control spectrum. If the world wouldn’t be a better place without guns, then what is the point of reducing guns? From a theoretical point of argument, gun control takes the position that fewer guns are better, so obviously none is better than few. If not, where does it turn around? Where does it get to the point where further reducing guns now causes harm to society? These are things you need to ask yourself Jade. You say no one is [politically] calling for the elimination of all guns- but you personally would feel it is a good thing, right?

    Also, that is a very touching story about marital communications. Thank you for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Az Red: Actually, the law is crystal clear as to what an assault weapon is. Gunloons don't like it, so they make up their own definition.

    MikeyW: As I've sagely noted, anything can kill--a piece of paper, a doorstop, bad sushi. Trotting out anedotes of people killing with cars or bombs is rather silly since none of these are particularly efficient or are subject to the perpetrator being caught or identified. After all, it's very difficult for someone to drive their car onto an elevator so he can run over his boss on the 4th floor.

    OTOH, we don't send our troops into combat in Hyundais.

    Yes, murders will still be with us even if all guns were to magically disappear from the earth. But we'd have far less of them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Az Red: Actually, the law is crystal clear as to what an assault weapon is. Gunloons don't like it, so they make up their own definition."

    Stop lying, Jade.

    If the law is so crystal clear, why does California have to publish a 96 page book on how to identify an assault weapon?

    And if an assault weapon is so well defined, why do gun controllers try to change the definition to include more guns such as in the latest attempt to revive the defunct 1994 Assault Weapons Ban?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anybody remember Charlie Whitman? Looks like the quality of (would-be) mass killers has certainly deteriorated.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Yes, murders will still be with us even if all guns were to magically disappear from the earth."

    You finally seem to grasp what we've always said. And then you go and throw this out there...

    "But we'd have far less of them."

    Based upon what evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hubby had lost or misplaced 2 guns. Wifey made hubby get rid of all his guns except a hunting rifle.

    Didn't see him wearing NRA gear anymore.


    Nice piece of fiction there. You've long since lost credibility here, though, so I doubt anyone believes this bit of tripe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "As I've sagely noted, anything can kill--a piece of paper, a doorstop, bad sushi."

    Where did you ever sagely note anything, and specifically, where did you note this?

    "Trotting out anedotes of people killing with cars or bombs is rather silly since none of these are particularly efficient..."

    Really, bombs seem to do the job of killing indiscriminately, and in large order, quite nicely. Hamas has that figured out, why can't you?

    "...or are subject to the perpetrator being caught or identified."

    What does that have to do with the effectiveness of the tool? Focus, Jade, that was what we were talking about here. Effectiveness, not 'can I get caught or identified?'

    "After all, it's very difficult for someone to drive their car onto an elevator so he can run over his boss on the 4th floor.

    OTOH, we don't send our troops into combat in Hyundais."

    Now you've gone to complete absurdity to make a point?

    In your first example, why wouldn't the employee wait until the end of the work day and run him over in the parking lot?

    As to your second foray into utter stupidity, we have tanks. Which surprisingly, have guns mounted on them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ruffy: You can call it fiction but I got 7 guns off the street. More importantly, I probably saved someone in that family's life.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "You can call it fiction but I got 7 guns off the street."


    Wait, wait, wait!! They were on the street? This guy was a fence?

    Or are you (still) a liar?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ruffy: You can call it fiction but I got 7 guns off the street. More importantly, I probably saved someone in that family's life.

    Ah, so now you are a hero! Every good bit of fiction needs a hero! Well done, but next time make the villain a bit more dastardly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jade, you have been very active today, but are yet to address my question. All politics aside, I would like you to honestly answer me this in your opinion:

    You think there are too many guns in this country, correct? (I have never heard of a gun controller who didn’t think that)

    So fewer guns would be better, right?

    Is none better than fewer?

    If not, please explain why “no guns” is worse than “fewer guns”. What is it about the elimination of all guns that is a bad thing in your mind?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wait a minute, did Brad say all who are not disqualified "must take a gun safety class where they learn how to shoot and safely handle a gun?"

    I thought you guys were against gun laws. Only kidding.

    I am curious about what FWM said. I wonder if most people who've never handled a gun would be drawn to the pro-gun side if they made a trip to the shooting range. I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. TS: As I've repeatedly (and quite sagely)noted there is no magical button to get rid of all guns. Even if there were, I'd probably have a tough time pushing that button. I come from a rural background and have owned guns and hunted; as a kid, I can remember people who didn't hunt for recreation--they hunted because if they didn't, their families didn't eat so well part of the year.

    Further, reducing the number of guns by itself is only addressing part of the problem. The problem is largely that not everyone is capable of handling firearms. Some people are criminals, some are mentally and/or physically incapable, some are emotionally incapable.


    Right now, any criminal, any mentally incapacitated, any substance abuser, etc. can get whatever firearm they desire if they have the cash--with no questions asked. That's because gunloons have made access to guns easy--and they wish to make it easier still.

    Frankly, you're the dupes of a gun industry that understands it has to promote greater violence in order to profit.

    ReplyDelete
  26. First, it's simply untrue that a kife or a bat can inflict the same amount of damage as a gun.

    Jade lies like always.

    People have been SHOT and not even realized it. You think a .22 to the back inflicts MORE damage than a stab wound from a 7 inch hunting knife.

    People have been stabbed in the chest and killed with two inch pairing knives.

    People have been shot in the head at point blank range and walked to the hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Ruffy: You can call it fiction but I got 7 guns off the street."

    Where did they go? Did they destroy them? I doubt it. You got nothing "off the street", you just changed owners.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The man's wife got him to get rid of the guns...mark Jade's words!

    When I brought home my first gun, the wife asked if I would be buying any more. I said "Yes", she wasn't pleased with that.

    Fast forward about 8 years, now I have a BUNCH of guns, and two of them belong to my wife.

    I suspect another Jadegold Fantasy. But that's why your master keeps you around. He likes the sound of your barks, and likes to tell people what a good bitch he has!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ohh, careful there Weer'd. That could probably be construed as a death threat by the criminally insane or mentally retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lord knows Mikey's little bitch is both of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Weerd: She likes guns, now? What a heartwarming tale.

    But do ever wonder...say you're shooting happily aside her at the range...and all of a sudden, y'know, an attack comes on...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jade I take it you have never seen or heard of throwing knives? In a sense John has a point, if you are taking into account that weapons can be used in multiple ways. Knives can be used as thrown weapons, stabbing weapons, cutting weapons, and depending on the type a blunt object. K-Bar knives have a rounded end on the handle that can be used in such a fashion. Smaller knives (pocket knives) can be used in the same way, they can also be used as a type of brass knuckle. I am not going to say it is smart to use a knife in that way, but whatever floats your boat. Baseball bats can also be thrown, but I will admit they tend to be less dangerous when thrown than when used as a club. I will also say that using a knife or baseball bat in a spree killing is not likely.

    The man never said that a knife or bat was effective in all types of attacks, just that in the right or wrong hands they can be equally as dangerous or deadly.

    John never said anything about prohibition being a massive failure, just that it failed. That the use of alcohol continued even after it was banned, and it actually became a very good business to be in. It is the same with drugs if you want to go that far.

    Another thing that I noticed, John only stated that a gun safety course would possibly change minds. He never said it had to be taught by an NRA certified instructor.

    I noticed that you completely ignored his final paragraph. To which he stated that in order to solve gun violence, or violence in general that we must fix the problems with our society. That does not sound like a gun-loon to me, that just sounds like someone who feels that the problem is people, not guns.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And if you think knives and baseball bats can compare to guns for lethality, don't forget skateboards. Bob S. seriously argued with Japete that the skateboard in that famous incident last week might very well have been used to provoke the justifiable shooting.

    You guys are more fun than a barrel full of monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
  34. We aim to please.

    Since Jadegold doesn't seem to want to do anything but throw lies, insults and condecension around, and you condone it (and even defend it) we figure that serious discussion isn't the goal. So, why bother?

    ReplyDelete