Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

VA Tech Shootings - Gun Control, Bush, all things politics

Old 04-16-07, 05:55 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Originally Posted by General Zod
There was a shooting at a local mall not too long ago where someone carrying a concealed weapon shot the shooter before they killed someone. Since nobody got seriously hurt the story was buried with much haste within days. This story will get press for months and beyond (I'm sure Michael Moore is already warming up his cameras).
This happens often (stories getting buried). I wish we heard more about private citizens protecting themselves and others.

-p
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 05:58 PM
  #27  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Originally Posted by nevermind
I was listening to either CNN or Fox News on the way home. They had a "school shooting expert" go on for a good 5 minutes about past events. He stated in many more words than this, that it wasn't IF video games caused this, it was which ones caused it..
It isn't CAUSED, but it contributes. School shootings/crisis management are a side clinical interest of mine, so I've done a good deal or research in the area. I've talked at length with various experts and they all pretty much agree that violent videogames contribute to desensitizing a person to violence, etc. They actually have/had a game based on Columbine. HERE. This was the latest video game that experts were talking about. WTF was the programmer thinking? What is disturbing aren't the graphics, but the intent.

"Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. -Jiddu Krishnamurti
-p

Last edited by NotThatGuy; 04-16-07 at 06:07 PM.
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 06:08 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Originally Posted by John Galt
I know I sure wouldn't have felt safer if all my fellow students were, but I would feel safer if people who had passed gun safety classes and had concealed weapons permits (myself included) were allowed to carry.
Ditto.

-p
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 07:36 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Formerly known as "brizz"/kck
Posts: 23,425
Originally Posted by IMRICKJAMES
I'm shocked there have been 8 posts and no one has blamed Bush. That's some sort of record for news stories, usually its his fault by the 4th or 5th post at the latest
these posts should constitute one strike in the three strike rule. seems like bush lovers are the only ones who ever bring up "blaming bush" for random shit.
HistoryProf is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 07:46 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by pedagogue
It isn't CAUSED, but it contributes. School shootings/crisis management are a side clinical interest of mine, so I've done a good deal or research in the area. I've talked at length with various experts and they all pretty much agree that violent videogames contribute to desensitizing a person to violence, etc. They actually have/had a game based on Columbine. HERE. This was the latest video game that experts were talking about. WTF was the programmer thinking? What is disturbing aren't the graphics, but the intent.

"Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn't merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. -Jiddu Krishnamurti
-p

if that is true why isn't there an epidemic of these shootings? how many millions of copies of Quake and other FPS's have been sold since Castle Wolfenstein?
al_bundy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 07:47 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
brian williams reported from the scene and mentioned that the shooter used a high capacity magazine that only recently became legal again
al_bundy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 08:01 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,816
Originally Posted by al_bundy
brian williams reported from the scene and mentioned that the shooter used a high capacity magazine that only recently became legal again
Legal to manufacture again. No federal law prohibited their sale at any point. They have always been readily available even when they were "banned."
jfoobar is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 08:04 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,816
Originally Posted by CRM114
I went to college in Happy Valley. It wouldn't be happy if even a quarter of the 50,000 students had guns. I'd assume that would mean many guns in dormitories in the hands of immature students. I tremble at the thought but I'm an old man now.
I had a CCW when I was a student (after I was 21 anyway). My university did not recognize the state CCW and you had to apply for a separate one for the campus, which I did since it was cheap.

To the best of my recollection, I don't think I ever actually carried on university grounds though. I only had it in case I forgot to remove my pistol from my car before parking on campus.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 09:01 PM
  #34  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Originally Posted by al_bundy
if that is true why isn't there an epidemic of these shootings? how many millions of copies of Quake and other FPS's have been sold since Castle Wolfenstein?
It is merely a contributing factor, not a causal agent.

-p
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 09:27 PM
  #35  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
and it happens in so few cases compared to the number of people that play these games that you can't say it contributes

it's like trying to prove that antibiotics, pesticides and hormones are bad for people when the eat food containing them. too many other factors to even make a theory about it
al_bundy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 09:44 PM
  #36  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,335
Originally Posted by Nazgul
I'd like to see Grundle repost his "article" about how keeping guns off campus created an atmosphere for this tragedy.

I posted a link to a google cache in that other thread, because the original article wouldn't load at the time. And I only posted a little of the article.

But it loads now, and it is a real article. Here's all of it, with no bolding from me. This school is a gun free zone.


http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/wb/xp-21770

April 13, 2005

Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire

Some people question whether the university has the authority to ban the carrying of firearms. How about you?

By Kevin Miller

BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.

University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.

Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.

Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.

"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."

Most public colleges in Virginia ban or restrict guns on campus. But the root of that authority is murky, according to some observers.

Virginia law already prohibits students or visitors from carrying guns onto the grounds of public and private K-12 schools. The state also prohibits concealed weapons in courthouses, places of worship during a service, jails and on any private property where the owner has posted a "no guns" notice. State employees are barred from possessing guns while at work unless needed for their job.

But Virginia code is silent on guns and public colleges. And two bills seeking to give college governing boards the authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during this year's General Assembly session.

David Briggman, a resident of Keezletown in Rockingham County, has made it his personal mission to challenge state colleges' authority to enact tougher gun restrictions than the state.

Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU's policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.

"It's extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at ... whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they're not," Briggman said Tuesday.

Hincker, meanwhile, said it is not unusual for colleges to have more restrictive policies than the state. As an example, Hincker said certain chemicals and explosives that are legal on the outside are prohibited in the classroom or in dormitories for safety reasons.

"We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.

Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.

"The excellent reputation of Virginia's colleges and universities depends in part on the public's belief that they are sending their college-age children to safe environments," the policy paper reads.

At least one attorney who represents college students would like to see the concealed-carry permit issue clarified.

John Robertson, the Student Legal Services attorney at Tech, said he's heard differing interpretations of the policy at Tech. Robertson, whose position is funded through the Student Government Association's budget, does not represent students in disputes with the university but offers free legal advice and services to students on civil and criminal matters.

Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General's Office resolve the matter. As for a university's refusal to honor a concealed-carry permit, Robertson added: "I am dubious that one particular arm of the state can do so without a particular statute."

Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had "never been tested" and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.

"But we stand by the policy unequivocally," Hincker said.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 09:51 PM
  #37  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,335
Here's another article, and I'm defintiely using some bolding with it:


http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/va...ised_defea.php

VA Tech official praised defeat of student self-defense proposal in 2006

Jeff Johnson OneNewsNow.com April 16, 2007

A Virginia Tech official in 2006 praised the defeat of a proposal to allow students with state-issued concealed handgun permits to carry their handguns on college campuses in Virginia. At least 20 unarmed students were killed on the VA Tech campus Monday morning by a single gunman.

Virginia House Bill 1572 was proposed in 2005 by Shenandoah County, Va., Republican Del. Todd Gilbert after a VA Tech student with a state-issued concealed handgun permit was arrested and charged only with "unlawfully" carrying a handgun on campus. The bill would have prohibited state universities in Virginia from enacting "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

After the proposal died in the state's House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety, The Roanoke Times quoted VA Tech spokesman Larry Hincker as celebrating the defeat of the bill.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions," Hincker said on Jan. 31, 2006, "because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."


Following Monday's multiple-victim shooting at VA Tech, Erich Pratt with Virginia-based Gun Owners of America called that philosophy "idiocy."

"I think gun control advocates will say, 'See, we need more gun control,' even though this is exactly the product of gun control," Pratt said.

Currently, only Utah and Oregon have statutes specifically authorizing law-abiding individuals with concealed handgun permits to possess their firearms on state university property. Most other states have explicit or implied prohibitions.

"Every [other] school campus in this nation is a 'gun free zone,' supposedly," Pratt bemoaned. "But, isn't it amazing that criminals, bad guys never obey those laws."

Regarding Utah, Pratt adds, "Isn't it interesting that that's the one state where we haven't heard of any school shootings."

At least two school shootings have been stopped by armed civilians before police arrived:

January 9, 2002, Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. - 43 year old Peter Odighizuwa, who had flunked out of the small law school earlier in the week killed three people and wounded three others. Two law students - Tracy Bridges and Ted Besen - retreived a handgun from Bridges' vehicle and held Odighizuwa at gun point for several minutes before police arrived. (Bridges was a reserve deputy sheriff, but was not on duty at the time of the incident.)

October 1, 1997, Pearl High School, Pearl, Ms. - 16 year old Luke Woodham carried a rifle onto the school campus, killed his ex-girlfriend and one of her friends and wounded seven other people. Assisstant Principal Joel Myrick retreived a handgun from his truck and held Woodham for police. It was later learned that the teeneager had beaten and stabbed his own mother to death before the attack at the school.

Pratt is not optimistic, however, that lawmakers will allow public university students and faculty members to protect themselves from mass murderers like the one who struck VA Tech Monday.

"The only schools and universities where these tragedies have been stopped abruptly were the places where law-abiding citizens had a gun that was accessible to them and they were able to stop the shooter," Pratt noted. "The schools and universities that had to wait for the police to arrive, those are the ones that find these high death tolls.

"It's just a real shame," he concluded, "that these guys never get it."
grundle is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 09:55 PM
  #38  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
you can't carry firearms into a federal office building so i don't see what the big deal is in this case about prohibiting firearms on campus
al_bundy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 10:06 PM
  #39  
DVD Talk Hero
 
jfoobar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 37,816
Originally Posted by al_bundy
you can't carry firearms into a federal office building so i don't see what the big deal is in this case about prohibiting firearms on campus
Apples and oranges. VT is a state university. As such, the campus is state property and the student had a state-issued CCW.

Federal office buildings also tend to have very substantial armed security and metal detectors for all visitors.
jfoobar is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 10:07 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
Originally Posted by al_bundy
i'll be watching the news just to see some idiots call for tougher gun laws
Or the idiots who will say MORE GUNS and concealed carry permits would have solved the problem.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 10:25 PM
  #41  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by JustinS
Apples and oranges. VT is a state university. As such, the campus is state property and the student had a state-issued CCW.

Federal office buildings also tend to have very substantial armed security and metal detectors for all visitors.

can you carry weapons into state and city office buildings? absolutely no reason to carry a weapon into class, the library or to have one in the dorm. if you want to carry it on campus is one thing, but i don't see why VT can't keep them out of university buildings.
al_bundy is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 11:15 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
Private property owners can ban CCW permits from their property. Universities and other public property are state institutions which must abide by state laws.

Now, there can be laws enacted to ban weapons from special places on a per state basis or federal basis, but the feds usually let the state enact their own specific laws for carrying.

So, the state of Virginia could enact a law to ban weapons/guns from all state-run universities. However, this could be challenged (remember, this is a state institution not a private entity) and would probably end up going to the USSC.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-16-07, 11:46 PM
  #43  
Political Exile
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,335
As far as I can tell, the national mainstream media is totally ignoring the fact that the school was a "gun free" zone.

This is from before this incident, but it's still quite relevant:


http://www.venusproject.com/books_au...john_lott.html


"The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong - By John R. Lott, Jr. (Regnery)

Disarming America

A review of The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control is Wrong, by John R. Lott, Jr.

By Joseph Bessette

Posted August 27, 2003

This review appeared in the Fall 2003 issue of the Claremont Review of Books. Click here to send a comment.

In January 2002, a former student of Appalachian Law School in Virginia, who had flunked out the year before, returned to discuss his academic suspension. Unable to achieve reinstatement, he went into the office of the school's dean and shot him fatally with a .380 semiautomatic handgun from point-blank range. He then did the same to one of the school's professors. On his way out he shot four female students, killing one and wounding the others in the abdomen, the throat, and the chest. The carnage ended, according to nearly all the news accounts, when several students tackled the offender as he exited the building. According to John Lott, however, 204 of 208 news stories on the incident somehow failed to mention a telling fact about the offender's apprehension: two male students ran to their cars to get their guns, and by brandishing one at him forced the killer to drop his weapon. Then they tackled him.

The reporters (and perhaps their editors) failed to mention this dramatic use of guns for self-defense despite the fact that one of the student heroes had explained in detail, to more than 50 reporters, how he and his friend had ended the rampage. When Lott called the Washington Post to find out why its story hadn't mentioned the guns, the reporter, who had written only of the students "pouncing" on the offender, confirmed that both the armed students had told her the same story but that she didn't focus on the "details" of the incident; also, "space constraints" were a factor. Even more striking, the Associated Press media relations manager, while denying any intention to downplay the defensive use of guns, expressed his shock at the students' actions. As he told the Kansas City Star, "I thought, my God, they're putting into jeopardy even more people by bringing out these guns."


If the American people don't realize how often guns are used for self-defense, they are hardly to blame; the media, especially the national media, don't often tell them. Lott offers another example. Five years before the attack at Appalachian Law School, 16-year-old Luke Woodham made national headlines when, after stabbing his mother to death at home, he took a rifle to his high school in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot nine of his classmates, killing two, including his girlfriend. Scarcely reported at the time was that an assistant principal apprehended Woodham only after running to his pickup to retrieve his .45 caliber pistol (parked far enough from the school to avoid violating the 1,000 foot "gun-free zone" required by federal law). "I had my pistol's sights on him," the school official explained later. He ordered Woodham to lie on the ground: "I put my foot on his back area and pointed my pistol at him."

Why such underreporting of the use of firearms for self-defense? Lott suggests two broad reasons. First, according to survey data, about 95 percent of the time that guns are used in self-defense, they are merely brandished by the potential victim. Because no one is actually shot or killed, the incident is not deemed truly "newsworthy." The more troubling explanation, however, is that too few people in the media are willing to recognize "the positive effects of guns: that they often save innocent lives." Guns, Lott argues, have both benefits and costs. The task of empirical analysis is to determine "which of these two effects is greater." Building upon research he first presented in his seminal 1997 article, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns" (with David Mustard) and in his controversial 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, Lott concludes in The Bias Against Guns that there is "compelling evidence indicating that guns make us safer."

Readers of Lott's previous book who may have found daunting the task of working through his detailed and often complex statistical analyses will be pleased to learn that the current volume is much more accessible to a broad audience. Here Lott has done an outstanding job of presenting statistical results in a way non-experts can understand. Yet the technical nature of the underlying methodologies will once again generate in the criminology and economics journals substantial debate over his findings. If the past is any guide, Lott will relish the opportunity to defend those findings. (He sometimes brings his laptop to panels at professional meetings and conducts analyses as needed, on the spot.)

The Bias Against Guns also covers a wider range of gun-control issues than his previous book, which focused mainly on state laws regulating the right to carry concealed weapons. Among the issues analyzed here are the impact of gun control laws on multiple public shootings; the effects of "safe storage" laws on crime rates, gun accidents, and suicides; and the impact on crime rates of waiting periods, gun show regulations, and assault weapons bans. Drawing upon his own analyses and occasionally the work of others, Lott presents an impressive array of findings:

defensive uses of guns in the United States number about two million per year (dwarfing the number of gun crimes);

accidental gun deaths of children are quite rare (less frequent, for example, than the death of children in adult beds by being "wedged between the mattress and adjoining wall or the headboard");

the prevalence of concealed handguns in Israel (carried by up to ten percent of the adult population) virtually ended terrorism by machine gun, previously preferred to bombings;

the virtual banning of the private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom and Australia resulted in an explosion of violent and gun-related crime in those two countries and explains why most burglaries in Britain occur while the dwelling is occupied, compared to just 13 percent of burglaries in the United States, where would-be burglars face a non-trivial chance of being shot;

right-to-carry concealed handgun laws (now the rule in 33 states) significantly reduced the number and severity of public shootings;

safe-storage laws (requiring guns to be locked up, fitted with trigger locks, or stored unloaded) have no effect on accidental gun deaths or total suicide rates, but do result in more crime (apparently by making self-defense more difficult);

none of the other popular gun control measures-such as waiting periods (Brady Law), gun show regulations, and assault weapons bans-reduce crime, and may even increase it.

Although Lott rightly argues against policymaking by anecdote, especially since the anecdotes tend to come to us from a biased media, he wisely scatters his own telling anecdotes throughout his book. Perhaps none is more to the point than the following:

A building contractor, on his way home from work, picked up three young hitchhikers. He fixed them a steak dinner at his house and was preparing to offer them jobs. But two of the men grabbed his kitchen knives and started stabbing him in the back, head, and hands. The attackers only stopped when he told them that he could give them money. But instead of money, the contractor grabbed a pistol and shot one of the attackers. The contractor said, "If I'd had a trigger lock, I'd be dead. If my pistol had been in a gun safe, I'd be dead. If the bullets were stored separate, I'd be dead. They were going to kill me."

Ignore the potential use of handguns in self-defense and it becomes easy to argue for trigger locks, gun safes, and storing bullets separately. Surely our children will be safer, proponents argue. To this Lott responds, however, that there is no empirical evidence that such restrictions have any positive effect on accidental gun deaths, and such restrictions may well render a weapon at home useless when most needed.

Now include the whole range of gun control measures designed to make us all safer: waiting periods, safety testing, bans on inexpensive handguns (so called "Saturday night specials"), requirements that private sales at gun shows employ background checks, etc. The cumulative effect of these measures is necessarily to increase the expense and the hassle of owning guns, especially handguns. Make an activity more costly and you are likely to get less of it. Thus, Lott's fear: fewer responsible, law-abiding citizens will own and carry weapons. And if more guns result in less crime, then fewer guns will likely lead to more crime, as our British cousins appear to be learning.

Lott himself is persuaded that the disarming of America is the conscious intention of the leading handgun control groups and politicians, despite their protestations to the contrary. He quotes, for example, Pete Shields, the founder of Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, run by Sarah and Jim Brady): "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal." Lott also tells of serving on a panel to debate the merits of cities' suing gun makers and hearing Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell (now governor of Pennsylvania) deny that he wanted to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Later, however, Rendell, not realizing that Lott was standing behind him, put his arm around an anti-gun activist and said, "I just can't say publicly what we want to do, we have to take these things slowly."

In documenting the many manifestations of the anti-gun "hysteria" in the United States, Lott tells the story of how he and his wife took their four sons to the Yale University Health Service for medical checkups in 1999. "Prominently displayed posters on the walls warned against keeping handguns in the home." After the nurse practitioner took the children's medical histories, "she asked us whether we owned guns and whether they were locked up or loaded." As Lott responded with data to show that guns saved lives and "were much less of a risk than other common household items," his wife, worried that he "was antagonizing our children's health care providers, forcefully ground her heel into my foot to signal me to stop pursuing the issue." For the past six years John Lott has been grinding his heel into the anti-gun establishment with sophisticated, comprehensive, and trenchant empirical analyses. Indeed, it is hard to think of a social scientist in recent years whose work has been so frequently cited in public policy debates.

Yet if pro-gun politicians are inclined to embrace Lott's central thesis-more guns, less crime-and anti-gun politicians recoil in horror, the debate in the scholarly community continues at professional conferences and in the pages of leading academic journals, especially surrounding the significant technical issues involved in Lott's statistical analyses. No one, however, defends his work more energetically than John Lott, whose two books on guns contain extensive responses to his critics. Even now a panel of the National Academy of Sciences is assessing current research on firearms violence. In The Bias Against Guns, Lott attacks the panel as "stacked" with anti-gun academics and researchers. Yet no less a figure than James Q. Wilson, a member of the panel, has publicly expressed his confidence that the panel will produce a balanced and apolitical report, which is expected within the next 12 months.

Unfortunately, The Bias Against Guns has not yet received the attention it deserves, with almost no reviews in the nation's leading newspapers and journals of opinion. By rights, Lott's new book ought to have a powerful effect on the gun control debate in the country. One fears, though, that the bias is so strong that it is impervious to facts. As Lott convincingly shows, the stakes in this debate are unusually high.
grundle is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 12:50 AM
  #44  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
Maybe the rampage was ended in that situation, but certainly, there is no way to determine if more good guys with guns would solve a situation with one bad guy with utter determination and predatory skill.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 12:59 AM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
A bullet has the same results, regardless of the targets determination or skill (you're not dodging it).
Chaos is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 01:01 AM
  #46  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,533
You're saying a person who has no shooting experience won't affect the performance of a weapon?
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 06:24 AM
  #47  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
You're saying a person who has no shooting experience won't affect the performance of a weapon?
A person is incapable of getting a CCW with "no shooting experience."
crazyronin is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 07:35 AM
  #48  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Originally Posted by al_bundy
and it happens in so few cases compared to the number of people that play these games that you can't say it contributes

it's like trying to prove that antibiotics, pesticides and hormones are bad for people when the eat food containing them. too many other factors to even make a theory about it
Tell that to the people who wrote up the individual post-psych evaluations on the shooters. There was also a meta analysis done on a grouping of shooters for one of the gov't agencies. Once things settle down, I'll talk with the person I know who contributed to them, and try and get a copy. IIRC, they sent the report out to the school districts.....and no one wanted to talk about it.

In a moment of synergy....they just had a legal expert (Jack Thompson) on MSNBC who JUST talked about the use of video games. He talked about how the MILITARY uses video games to train future soldiers. Methodology used in those games, desensatizing the placyers, etc.

The montreal shooters trained on video games. Red Lake (trained on a video game....GTA) The Kentucky shooter....trained on Doom. The germany shooting (3 years ago), trained on CounterStrike.....and dressed up in the cammo while doing it. He had 52 shooting related games on his system.

I'll stop back tonight.

-p
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 08:12 AM
  #49  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,320
Originally Posted by pedagogue
It is merely a contributing factor, not a causal agent.

-p
It's not even a contributing factor.

The person is fucking sick. That's the factor. Berkowitz said that dog toldhim to kill. Manson said it was the White Album by The Beatles. These people are sick and are unable to process information like a sane human being can. I notice that these things are only "contributing factors" or causes when it's something the nitwits can rally against. When someone kills and blames religion (unless they're Muslim), they're always a sick person and no way could it have been the fault of religion.


Originally Posted by pedagogue
Tell that to the people who wrote up the individual post-psych evaluations on the shooters.
Someone needs to tell them something, because it seems that these people have forgotten that people who are already violent will be attracted to violent things.


Originally Posted by pedagogue
In a moment of synergy....they just had a legal expert (Jack Thompson)
Heh... heh heh.... Jack Thompson. You've pretty much shot down the last of your credibility in bringing his name up. Thompson is a batshit insane fundamentalist with goals of completely tearing down anything in the entertainment industry that he feels doesn't conform to his standards, and he's not hesitant to trample on our Constitutional rights to do so.

(yadda yadda yadda, stats on 4 whole bad people playing shooter games snipped for space)

For every one of your horrible bad people that "trained" on these games, I can show you hundreds of thousands, even millions more that play these games and do not go out and shoot people.

It's just as bad as the people blaming Dungeons & Dragons back in the 80's.

God forbid we actually ask for personal accountability. It's much easier (and more lucrative financially and politically) to blame inanimate objects.

Last edited by MovieExchange; 04-17-07 at 08:28 AM.
MovieExchange is offline  
Old 04-17-07, 08:39 AM
  #50  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Originally Posted by pedagogue
Tell that to the people who wrote up the individual post-psych evaluations on the shooters. There was also a meta analysis done on a grouping of shooters for one of the gov't agencies. Once things settle down, I'll talk with the person I know who contributed to them, and try and get a copy. IIRC, they sent the report out to the school districts.....and no one wanted to talk about it.

In a moment of synergy....they just had a legal expert (Jack Thompson) on MSNBC who JUST talked about the use of video games. He talked about how the MILITARY uses video games to train future soldiers. Methodology used in those games, desensatizing the placyers, etc.

The montreal shooters trained on video games. Red Lake (trained on a video game....GTA) The Kentucky shooter....trained on Doom. The germany shooting (3 years ago), trained on CounterStrike.....and dressed up in the cammo while doing it. He had 52 shooting related games on his system.

I'll stop back tonight.

-p

they might have used the games to practice but the games didn't make them do it.

back in the army we used to play duke nukem multiplayer and we had an infantryman playing with us all the time. he used to win all the time because he used the tactics he learned as part of his training. even after he found out his wife was cheating on him he never killed anyone.

neither did all the other infantrymen that had a home network in the barracks and used to play games with each other. in my 8 years in the army the only time i heard of people shooting someone was a crazy person at ft bragg who had some problems with his chain of command and some special ops guys who were on a anti-malaria drug that has links to violent behavior. and there was a case in korea where a soldier killed a prostitute by sticking an umbrella up her ass, but i've never heard of a game with that in there. and that was around 1992 and way before realistic games

if your theory is right then a lot more people in the military should be cold blooded killers. in fact more than 50% of the military is married, with children and live normal lives. and a lot of them play quake and other FPS games in addition to training simulators. we also used to play starcraft and one time our commander used tactics from the battle of cowpens to win. he was also an ex-infantryman with a few daughters

and shooting a gun in a game is a lot different than shooting a real weapon. we had a lot of officers miss a lot of times at short ranges with baretta handguns. it's also not that easy shooting an m16. it's a lot more to it than just squeezing the trigger

Last edited by al_bundy; 04-17-07 at 08:48 AM.
al_bundy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.