tracyaphillips said:
The Discovery Institute: harming us with pseudoscience
Posted: 4/13/07
This weekend Dedman Law School's Christian Legal Society will be hosting a controversial and well-known institute that preaches a religious message masked in a capsule of pseudoscience.
The Discovery Institute is one of the nations leading political action groups. It fights to create a theistic world view that corrupts science to fit the doctrines of evangelical and literal Christians who are unable to reconcile their religious beliefs with the material world.
A controversial document (reported as the Wedge Document, a 1998 internal memo) stated the Institute's goal was to "drive a wedge" into "scientific materialism" in order to divorce it from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and stop the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture.
As you can see, this Institute, which is on our campus, this weekend does not seek to debate ideas in an academic, scientific or even rational setting. Perhaps more egregious is the fact that the Discovery Institute does not practice science, namely the scientific method. Science is driven by constant self-critique, analysis and experimentation. The scientific method is the cornerstone to this practice and is a tool that has not only progressed humanity into an age of technological, medical and societal marvel, but has helped to correct the flaws and pitfalls within science as well. The thing about the scientific method is that it relies on observable and recordable phenomena in the material world. Keep in mind the phrase "material world." This is key.
If that observable data does not match up with the hypothesis of the scientist then the hypothesis must be changed. This is an error correcting mechanism by the mere fact that if new data or new discoveries are made they can be tested against an accepted hypothesis. If the hypothesis does not stand it is made defunct and the scientific method starts over again to find a new hypothesis or explanation.
This is where the Discovery Institute fails. The claims they make, claims based purely on religious or supernatural grounds, can NOT be tested in the material world. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or gods via observable phenomena in the material world - and neither can the Discovery Institute no matter what they may tell you. If they do tell you this it is because they are saying it based on a spiritual and supernatural belief masked in scientific language - not in scientific language itself.
There is nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs and believing in science - I know many Christians that do so and have stronger faith for it. You can not bring your religious beliefs into science, however, because as soon as you do you have corrupted the scientific method and are no longer talking about rationality and logic - you are talking about faith and emotion.
Carl Sagan once said that science is like a candle in the dark. It helps us to illuminate our world with the advances and progress it brings. He also warned that science could be used for ill when it is in the wrong hands - mainly by people who hold narrow-minded and pseudoscientific world views. With the amount of turmoil in our world today, it shocks me that people could still be fighting an institution (science) that has progressed humanity further than any economic, political or religious system ever has.
Unlike any other force in our world, science has the power to save or destroy humanity. The Discovery Institute is an institution that fights and corrupts this power by confusing the scientific process and preaches pseudoscience to a generally unaware audience.
For those that fear science and see it as a negative influence in society (i.e. the Discovery Institute) I have just one more comment to make. Carl Sagan once marveled at the furthest photo of Earth ever taken by Voyager I on Feb. 14, 1990 making a very poignant philosophical statement.
"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.
It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." This is what science if used properly can bring, hope to humanity.
The Discovery Institute can believe in a deity - it is their right. The Discovery Institute can not pass off that belief as science. When they try to they only show their own inability to come to terms with our existence on this little pale blue dot. Believe in God, believe in humanity, believe what you will, but please realize that well practiced science is the best thing we as a species have to fight tyranny, environmental degradation, illness and suffering.
About the writer:
Ben Wells is a junior anthropology major. He can be reached a bwells@smu.edu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus
Posted: 4/13/07
This weekend Dedman Law School's Christian Legal Society will be hosting a controversial and well-known institute that preaches a religious message masked in a capsule of pseudoscience.
The Discovery Institute is one of the nations leading political action groups. It fights to create a theistic world view that corrupts science to fit the doctrines of evangelical and literal Christians who are unable to reconcile their religious beliefs with the material world.
A controversial document (reported as the Wedge Document, a 1998 internal memo) stated the Institute's goal was to "drive a wedge" into "scientific materialism" in order to divorce it from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and stop the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture.
As you can see, this Institute, which is on our campus, this weekend does not seek to debate ideas in an academic, scientific or even rational setting. Perhaps more egregious is the fact that the Discovery Institute does not practice science, namely the scientific method. Science is driven by constant self-critique, analysis and experimentation. The scientific method is the cornerstone to this practice and is a tool that has not only progressed humanity into an age of technological, medical and societal marvel, but has helped to correct the flaws and pitfalls within science as well. The thing about the scientific method is that it relies on observable and recordable phenomena in the material world. Keep in mind the phrase "material world." This is key.
If that observable data does not match up with the hypothesis of the scientist then the hypothesis must be changed. This is an error correcting mechanism by the mere fact that if new data or new discoveries are made they can be tested against an accepted hypothesis. If the hypothesis does not stand it is made defunct and the scientific method starts over again to find a new hypothesis or explanation.
This is where the Discovery Institute fails. The claims they make, claims based purely on religious or supernatural grounds, can NOT be tested in the material world. I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or gods via observable phenomena in the material world - and neither can the Discovery Institute no matter what they may tell you. If they do tell you this it is because they are saying it based on a spiritual and supernatural belief masked in scientific language - not in scientific language itself.
There is nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs and believing in science - I know many Christians that do so and have stronger faith for it. You can not bring your religious beliefs into science, however, because as soon as you do you have corrupted the scientific method and are no longer talking about rationality and logic - you are talking about faith and emotion.
Carl Sagan once said that science is like a candle in the dark. It helps us to illuminate our world with the advances and progress it brings. He also warned that science could be used for ill when it is in the wrong hands - mainly by people who hold narrow-minded and pseudoscientific world views. With the amount of turmoil in our world today, it shocks me that people could still be fighting an institution (science) that has progressed humanity further than any economic, political or religious system ever has.
Unlike any other force in our world, science has the power to save or destroy humanity. The Discovery Institute is an institution that fights and corrupts this power by confusing the scientific process and preaches pseudoscience to a generally unaware audience.
For those that fear science and see it as a negative influence in society (i.e. the Discovery Institute) I have just one more comment to make. Carl Sagan once marveled at the furthest photo of Earth ever taken by Voyager I on Feb. 14, 1990 making a very poignant philosophical statement.
"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us.
It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." This is what science if used properly can bring, hope to humanity.
The Discovery Institute can believe in a deity - it is their right. The Discovery Institute can not pass off that belief as science. When they try to they only show their own inability to come to terms with our existence on this little pale blue dot. Believe in God, believe in humanity, believe what you will, but please realize that well practiced science is the best thing we as a species have to fight tyranny, environmental degradation, illness and suffering.
About the writer:
Ben Wells is a junior anthropology major. He can be reached a bwells@smu.edu.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright 2007 Daily Campus
Dubya said:
LOL...Tracy, if you want me to post an article for ya, I can certainly do that for ya! :)
Good read though!
Good read though!
tracyaphillips said:
Awww heck, it don't matter.
Some folks may not want to comment on creationism.
My only comment is:
I was actually considering McCain a good presidential prospect.
That was until he took these folks at the DI seriously enough to go do a speaking engagement there.
Any candidate that takes this supposedly "scientific institute" that serious.....
is in a fantasy land, er uhm... reality challenged.
Sorry Johnny. Lost my vote on that trip.
Some folks may not want to comment on creationism.
My only comment is:
I was actually considering McCain a good presidential prospect.
That was until he took these folks at the DI seriously enough to go do a speaking engagement there.
Any candidate that takes this supposedly "scientific institute" that serious.....
is in a fantasy land, er uhm... reality challenged.
Sorry Johnny. Lost my vote on that trip.
tracyaphillips said:
Here's a linkie to the 'wedge' document.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
lindainks55 said:
Tracy, At one time I thought McCain was a man I could vote for too. He lost me at The Patriot Act. He caved in, and became no better than the other game players with NO standards.
There are many who praise the Discovery Institute. And those same people don't bother with facts. They believe this propaganda hook, line and sinker. They get in line and march lock-step. It is easier to be led than lead, easier to follow than take a stand, easier to be told what to think than to learn to think.
There are many who praise the Discovery Institute. And those same people don't bother with facts. They believe this propaganda hook, line and sinker. They get in line and march lock-step. It is easier to be led than lead, easier to follow than take a stand, easier to be told what to think than to learn to think.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Definitely off the current topic; Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is up at Virginia Tech? One dead, up to 17 wounded, according to AP; CNN has a breaking news banner indicating an unconfirmed report that there are 20 dead, all this from shootings on campus.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/in...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/16/vtech.shooting/in...
lindainks55 said:
Sounds like the campus is secure once again and the horrors of what happened will be unfolding and investigated. Makes you want to hug someone, doesn't it? I texted my grandson who is far away at college, just to tell him I love him.
lindainks55 said:
After I tuned in the news and got the overall picture of what was happening at Virginia Tech I did some surfing.
Again, off topic, but I found this article written by John J. Sheenan a retired Marine Corps General who was considered for the position we've heard referred to as "war czar." It's titled, Why I Declined To Serve." It's interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
Again, off topic, but I found this article written by John J. Sheenan a retired Marine Corps General who was considered for the position we've heard referred to as "war czar." It's titled, Why I Declined To Serve." It's interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
WSClark said:
What a morning to wake up to - 22 dead and 28 wounded at Virgina Tech - France knew of 9/11 al Qaeda plot and gave the info to the CIA nine months before hand - al Sadr associates quit Iraqi government - nor'easter kicks NY tail - Bush is still president - yada, yada, yada.
Sort of makes you want to climb back in bed and pull the covers over your head.
Oh well, it is a beautiful day outside!
Sort of makes you want to climb back in bed and pull the covers over your head.
Oh well, it is a beautiful day outside!
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, I agree on the need to hug someone; I've emailed the younger much as you texted your grandson, although I suspect she is more concerned right now with fighting the strong winds and heavy rains in that part of the U.S. than what happened at Virginia Tech (which I believe used to be referred to as VPI).
The general's remarks were quite appropriate; I wonder if anyone in the White House read the piece you linked.
The general's remarks were quite appropriate; I wonder if anyone in the White House read the piece you linked.
tracyaphillips said:
TERRIBLE!
I wonder if some idiot TV preacher is goana come out and blame the victims....again.
I hope that the next person that says "Everything happens for a reason", gets incurable facial warts.
I wonder if some idiot TV preacher is goana come out and blame the victims....again.
I hope that the next person that says "Everything happens for a reason", gets incurable facial warts.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Can't resist; listening, via computer, to "Classic Vinyl Revisited" on WMHB (college radio station of Colby College, where younger is); they just finished playing about 10 minutes of the soundtrack of the first "Laugh In" show, which brought a smile to the face due to the memories which flooded back.
lindainks55 said:
VT,
I went to the website of Colby College. It reminds me of the college my grandson chose on the left side of the U.S. He attends a tiny four-year liberal arts college too. Good times, important times, and these young people are preparing to be our future. Makes me feel good!
My son lives in Boston and he is also not too happy with today's weather. Don't imagine those thousands in that city to run the marathon are any too tickled either.
I went to the website of Colby College. It reminds me of the college my grandson chose on the left side of the U.S. He attends a tiny four-year liberal arts college too. Good times, important times, and these young people are preparing to be our future. Makes me feel good!
My son lives in Boston and he is also not too happy with today's weather. Don't imagine those thousands in that city to run the marathon are any too tickled either.
Wendy said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/vi...
a link to the latest updates if anyone is interested. I am rather in shock myself. Makes you wonder what this world is coming to. And it misses the deadliest shooting rampage in US history by only 2 - anyone else fear that in a day or two, it may take it over, if the number of wounded is anything to go by?
a link to the latest updates if anyone is interested. I am rather in shock myself. Makes you wonder what this world is coming to. And it misses the deadliest shooting rampage in US history by only 2 - anyone else fear that in a day or two, it may take it over, if the number of wounded is anything to go by?
Vaughn Tolle said:
Wendy, I note that an update to the AP story you linked reflects a total of 31 dead (including the shooter); horrifying. Most of us think of college campuses as places of relative safety, a bit removed from the day-to-day life those of us not on a campus face. To have the idyll shattered in such a way causes much concern to those with family on campuses; just doesn't seem real.
tracyaphillips said:
Which brings up another topic.
Concealed carry.
Everbody calls me liberal, but awhile back on blogx I brought up the fact that having liscensed gun toting teachers was a good idea.
Of course, I was pummeled from the left for saying such an eee-ville thing.
Concealed carry.
Everbody calls me liberal, but awhile back on blogx I brought up the fact that having liscensed gun toting teachers was a good idea.
Of course, I was pummeled from the left for saying such an eee-ville thing.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, while your idea might have had some positive effects on the Virginia Tech situation, as it appears a number of the dead were shot in a classroom, there were others shot in a residence hall. I do wonder about students being caught in a cross-fire, though.
Guess you can count me in the number opposing the idea in general, although I believe I can say I understand where you are coming from.
Back to work for me; just not enough time today, it seems.
Guess you can count me in the number opposing the idea in general, although I believe I can say I understand where you are coming from.
Back to work for me; just not enough time today, it seems.
lindainks55 said:
Will, I hadn't heard anything about that one line in your post, "France knew of 9/11 al Qaeda plot..." So I went to "the google" and found everyone abuzz. Guess this was during those firt months of bushco when he was setting records of most days of vacation taken by a sitting president. Can this guy be less competent!? I'm so ashamed.
tracyaphillips said:
VT, of course it's not a great solution.
I was talking about the high schools at the time.
In our smaller town, we have a DARE officer who travels to different schools.
My thoughts are, in a larger town, you could have at least one officer that teaches full-time too.
Dare, health classes, and some elective classes maybe?
There are no easy solutions.
I just thank God that I don't live in Baghdad where every day is like this one in Virginia.
I was talking about the high schools at the time.
In our smaller town, we have a DARE officer who travels to different schools.
My thoughts are, in a larger town, you could have at least one officer that teaches full-time too.
Dare, health classes, and some elective classes maybe?
There are no easy solutions.
I just thank God that I don't live in Baghdad where every day is like this one in Virginia.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Tracy, while taking a break and awaiting the arrival of a client...
In Wichita, the high schools and middle schools have a SRO (School Resource Officer) who is a uniformed, on duty police officer. The SRO's responsibility is, to me, obvious; to be an armed presence to counter violent activities which otherwise might occur. I understand that SROs serve other purposes, by getting to know students, etc., and thus being "in the loop" and knowing about simmering disputes and the like. You may have read in the Eagle about the contentious issue of who pays for the cost of the SROs. Most administrators have nothing but good things to say about the SROs in their respective buildings; I understand that most students are glad they are there, too.
In Wichita, the high schools and middle schools have a SRO (School Resource Officer) who is a uniformed, on duty police officer. The SRO's responsibility is, to me, obvious; to be an armed presence to counter violent activities which otherwise might occur. I understand that SROs serve other purposes, by getting to know students, etc., and thus being "in the loop" and knowing about simmering disputes and the like. You may have read in the Eagle about the contentious issue of who pays for the cost of the SROs. Most administrators have nothing but good things to say about the SROs in their respective buildings; I understand that most students are glad they are there, too.
Predestined said:
"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said
----
Just one more nonsense statement from W. The problem is that all laws are NOT followed. Never have been, never will be. This earth and this country are nowhere near Utopia. Because of this, we have laws that, when broken, have penalties. Yet we let some needed laws sunset (the federal ban on assault weapons), while giving more people the opportunity to carry concealed weapons.
Please don't read this as meaning I am opposed to citizens having guns. I'm not.
In this respect, it will be interesting to learn whether the shooter in the VT catastrophe was a licensed gun carrier, what kind of gun(s) he used, and if it/they was/were registered. Then maybe W's statement will carry more weight and make more sense.
My heart and prayers go out to the family and friends of those who lost their lives today.
----
Just one more nonsense statement from W. The problem is that all laws are NOT followed. Never have been, never will be. This earth and this country are nowhere near Utopia. Because of this, we have laws that, when broken, have penalties. Yet we let some needed laws sunset (the federal ban on assault weapons), while giving more people the opportunity to carry concealed weapons.
Please don't read this as meaning I am opposed to citizens having guns. I'm not.
In this respect, it will be interesting to learn whether the shooter in the VT catastrophe was a licensed gun carrier, what kind of gun(s) he used, and if it/they was/were registered. Then maybe W's statement will carry more weight and make more sense.
My heart and prayers go out to the family and friends of those who lost their lives today.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Pre, understand the weapons involved were 9mm; not clear from what I read (AP story on cnn.com) if handguns or otherwise; nothing has been released on the shooter as to id or otherwise.
WSClark said:
The shooter used a 9mm and a .22 revolver. He apparently was targeting specific groups of people. From what I have been able to gather, a CC would not have helped or would have helped very little. The striking thing is that the second round of shooting began nearly two hours after the first. This unfortunately was one determined killer.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Thanks, WS; I agree that he was one determined person. From reading a student's account, I infer that after the first shooting in the residence hall, there was a "lockdown" which was then rescinded shortly before the classroom shootings.
lindainks55 said:
Dan Froomkin titles today's White House Watch column, "Gonzales Likely to Disappoint."
"Judging from his prepared statement and his Washington Post op-ed, Gonzales will continue to insist that, while he doesn't really know why he fired the attorneys, he simply cannot believe that he did so for improper reasons. ...his testimony appears unlikely either to salvage his credibility or help investigators resolve any of the key questions in a scandal that seems to have had its roots in the West Wing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/links...
So the TOP law enforcer continues to be a bad influence for anyone looking to see how following the laws of the land is the thing to do. And probably will be the next sacrificial lamb for this administration made up of madmen.
"Judging from his prepared statement and his Washington Post op-ed, Gonzales will continue to insist that, while he doesn't really know why he fired the attorneys, he simply cannot believe that he did so for improper reasons. ...his testimony appears unlikely either to salvage his credibility or help investigators resolve any of the key questions in a scandal that seems to have had its roots in the West Wing."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/links...
So the TOP law enforcer continues to be a bad influence for anyone looking to see how following the laws of the land is the thing to do. And probably will be the next sacrificial lamb for this administration made up of madmen.
Vaughn Tolle said:
AG has lasted longer as AG than I thought he would; I suspect his continuing to hold his office will be dependent in great part upon how the hearings go tomorrow.
lindainks55 said:
More from Froomkin:
"...it's no secret in Washington that Gonzales is not an autonomous agent. His entire career has been as an enabler of George Bush."
An interesting sentence, don't you think?
"...it's no secret in Washington that Gonzales is not an autonomous agent. His entire career has been as an enabler of George Bush."
An interesting sentence, don't you think?
Danny said:
Hi,
Sorry about the fun little late, how to put it, posting today. Wow, VT, 31 dead(including the gun man). I don't even know what to say. So I state here(though may be they will not read it), I offer my sincerest sympathies to those students on campus and the families of those students whose lives were lost.
I read last week on MSNBC that the current Pope actually conceded to evolution occurring, but tempered that with not explaining where it is we come from or why the universe started. Interesting considering he is "more" conservative than John Paul II was. I found an interesting read to say the least.
Sorry about the fun little late, how to put it, posting today. Wow, VT, 31 dead(including the gun man). I don't even know what to say. So I state here(though may be they will not read it), I offer my sincerest sympathies to those students on campus and the families of those students whose lives were lost.
I read last week on MSNBC that the current Pope actually conceded to evolution occurring, but tempered that with not explaining where it is we come from or why the universe started. Interesting considering he is "more" conservative than John Paul II was. I found an interesting read to say the least.
Wendy said:
What has happened on the VTech campus is tragic. Hopefully we will be able to know the full story before too much longer, as the potential for speculation could trivialize this matter, I fear...
WSClark said:
VTech speculation - the first two killings were at a dorm. The police initially thought it was a domestic issue, leading one to believe that the shooter killed a girlfriend or ex and her roommate. The real barrage began two hours later when he chained the doors behind him and shot at least 46 in a classroom environment.
Some are already calling for MORE CC as a way to combat these types of incidents. Having teachers or students packing heat is not going to keep a madman from doing what he is going to do. I have a disagree with my friend Tracy on this one. I will concede that he was just talking about teachers carrying.
It is hard enough to attract quality teachers and professors. Requiring them to perform as a first line of defense will push even more or them into other professions.
I don't know what the solution is. I cannot imagine what would bring someone to do something like this.
There may well not be an answer. How do you determine that someone is that emotionally fragile or twisted that they would want to inflict such damage on society?
Some are already calling for MORE CC as a way to combat these types of incidents. Having teachers or students packing heat is not going to keep a madman from doing what he is going to do. I have a disagree with my friend Tracy on this one. I will concede that he was just talking about teachers carrying.
It is hard enough to attract quality teachers and professors. Requiring them to perform as a first line of defense will push even more or them into other professions.
I don't know what the solution is. I cannot imagine what would bring someone to do something like this.
There may well not be an answer. How do you determine that someone is that emotionally fragile or twisted that they would want to inflict such damage on society?
WSClark said:
Jeez - I really should have read Wendy's post (speculation) before tossing my two cents worth in.
In my defense, your honor, I was merely repeating "domestic" dispute comment from the MSNBC story.......
Now I will shut up.
In my defense, your honor, I was merely repeating "domestic" dispute comment from the MSNBC story.......
Now I will shut up.
lindainks55 said:
Washington Post humorist (and sage) Gene Weingarten writes in his Sunday column: "Once upon a time, no one criticized George W. Bush. That was about five years ago, when questioning the president was unpatriotic. Then, gradually, liberals began to voice grievances, then moderate Democrats, then liberal Republicans, then moderate Republicans, and now we're seeing uber-conservative hammerheads such as Bob Novak and Rich Lowry using the I-words: 'inept' and 'incompetent.' Foreign heads of state have started to take potshots at Bush when he's standing right next to them, during photo ops."
So what's next? Weingarten's fertile mind imagines anti-Bush horoscopes, weather reports . . . and children's stories.
" . . . Then out of the box came Thing One and Thing Two,
"And Sally and I did not know what to do!
"They knocked Sally down, and she fell on her tush.
"'I'm Cheney,' said one. Said the other, 'I'm Bush.'
"They attacked our four feet, with stompings and bites.
"First they chewed on our lefts, then they trampled our rights!
"They found Mother's money and flushed it away!
"If we go to college, NOW how will we pay?
"They smashed up our dishes, our toys and our bikes!
"Our globe was on fire, and the golf bag Dad likes!
"The mess they were making was torture to see,
"'Torture is good,' they told Sally and me . . . . "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
So what's next? Weingarten's fertile mind imagines anti-Bush horoscopes, weather reports . . . and children's stories.
" . . . Then out of the box came Thing One and Thing Two,
"And Sally and I did not know what to do!
"They knocked Sally down, and she fell on her tush.
"'I'm Cheney,' said one. Said the other, 'I'm Bush.'
"They attacked our four feet, with stompings and bites.
"First they chewed on our lefts, then they trampled our rights!
"They found Mother's money and flushed it away!
"If we go to college, NOW how will we pay?
"They smashed up our dishes, our toys and our bikes!
"Our globe was on fire, and the golf bag Dad likes!
"The mess they were making was torture to see,
"'Torture is good,' they told Sally and me . . . . "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
lindainks55 said:
You guys gotta check out that link (above post). If this goofus wasn't president it would be hilarious. Even with him as president it gives some comic relief.
Fortune cookie
All men make mistakes. Wise men learn from them, not like the idiot who will keep screwing up until January 20, 2009.
Your lucky numbers: 01, 21, 09
Nathan said:
Well, I am blogging from Cheyenne Wyoming tonight. On my way to Idaho, where I grew up, for a week.
In regards to concealed carry:
It is rather simple, if any one of those students or teachers had been carrying concealed they very well could have easily been able to stop this man from killing as many as he did.
The arguments are that there would be "crossfire" between the murderer and concealed carry holder.
Well, lets look at this logically. The murderer is going to kill until he is stopped. Would you rather see 33 dead with no crossfire or would you rather see maybe 10 dead with perhaps one or two from crossfire?
It amazes me that someone would think having the capability to stop a crazy gunman like this is going to be worse.
If I had been in that room with my weapon concealed I can almost guaruntee you that I would have stopped that man before he could kill that many students.
I don't want to force anyone to carry concealed. I would like the ability to carry concealed on campus.
Putting those little red and black no guns signs up only advertise to some crazy nut job that he will be the only one with the gun when he is going to be shooting people.
That is the entire purpose of concealed carry. It allows people the choice to be able to defend themselves if need be.
Predestined,
The assualt weapons ban didn't do anything but annoy people like me.
Can you tell me what the difference was between the Bushmaster M4A1 that I bought just after the ban and one I could have bought during the ban?
The only thing the ban did was get rid of cosmetic features on weapons like bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and collapsable stocks.
In regards to concealed carry:
It is rather simple, if any one of those students or teachers had been carrying concealed they very well could have easily been able to stop this man from killing as many as he did.
The arguments are that there would be "crossfire" between the murderer and concealed carry holder.
Well, lets look at this logically. The murderer is going to kill until he is stopped. Would you rather see 33 dead with no crossfire or would you rather see maybe 10 dead with perhaps one or two from crossfire?
It amazes me that someone would think having the capability to stop a crazy gunman like this is going to be worse.
If I had been in that room with my weapon concealed I can almost guaruntee you that I would have stopped that man before he could kill that many students.
I don't want to force anyone to carry concealed. I would like the ability to carry concealed on campus.
Putting those little red and black no guns signs up only advertise to some crazy nut job that he will be the only one with the gun when he is going to be shooting people.
That is the entire purpose of concealed carry. It allows people the choice to be able to defend themselves if need be.
Predestined,
The assualt weapons ban didn't do anything but annoy people like me.
Can you tell me what the difference was between the Bushmaster M4A1 that I bought just after the ban and one I could have bought during the ban?
The only thing the ban did was get rid of cosmetic features on weapons like bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and collapsable stocks.
Predestined said:
Thanks for the updates on the VT thing. I haven't had the TV or radio on to news all day and have only checked 'net news a couple of times.
A 9mm and a .22, huh? He must have been packing a lot of ammo to shoot that many. Is a Glock a 9mm? Doesn't it use a clip? My gun research was too long ago.
Whatever, I doubt CC will make any difference at all when it comes to these types of things happening. Sad but true. It doesn't matter what the current type of weapon being used, people are killed. Anything can kill, even a butter knife or a baseball bat, both seemingly innocent items, but deadly in the wrong hands. Now, if we all had to carry longwords and sabers, at least we might be able to tell when violence is coming. But then it might be we women with things like bodice daggers that you might have to fear the most.
(I'm battling a cold and feeling like crap, so excuse the rambling and incoherent statements.)
A 9mm and a .22, huh? He must have been packing a lot of ammo to shoot that many. Is a Glock a 9mm? Doesn't it use a clip? My gun research was too long ago.
Whatever, I doubt CC will make any difference at all when it comes to these types of things happening. Sad but true. It doesn't matter what the current type of weapon being used, people are killed. Anything can kill, even a butter knife or a baseball bat, both seemingly innocent items, but deadly in the wrong hands. Now, if we all had to carry longwords and sabers, at least we might be able to tell when violence is coming. But then it might be we women with things like bodice daggers that you might have to fear the most.
(I'm battling a cold and feeling like crap, so excuse the rambling and incoherent statements.)
Predestined said:
"...while HE DOESN'T REALLY KNOW WHY HE FIRED THE ATTORNEYS..."
Am I the only person who sees this as hideously STUPID? A sure sign of complete incompetence. If he doesn't know why he fired them, then why did he do it? Simple enough to ask. Maybe not so simple for him to answer. That remark in itself is the indicator for the loss of his job. I mean, really, folks, is this or is this not ridiculous?
Am I the only person who sees this as hideously STUPID? A sure sign of complete incompetence. If he doesn't know why he fired them, then why did he do it? Simple enough to ask. Maybe not so simple for him to answer. That remark in itself is the indicator for the loss of his job. I mean, really, folks, is this or is this not ridiculous?
Predestined said:
Nathan,
As I stated earlier, I am not against citizens having guns. As for you being there in the VT situation with your own weapon, if you were a student, I'm not all that sure that you would be allowed to have one in your dorm room on campus. If you kept it in your car, how would that have been helpful? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Because that's where the shooting first began, a teacher, who might be allowed to have a weapon, would not have been involved until the shooter went across campus. Your argument may sound good on the surface, but on closer inspection I don't know that it would hold water.
As for assault weapons, I listened to testimony from law enforcement during the hearings. THEY don't like to have to deal with them. True, many of those kinds of weapons out there were gotten illegally, but just what are you going to do with one? Hunt with it? Hang it in the back of your pickup? Carry it under your coat, in case you're the innocent victim in a street crime? I think it's more the "just having one" that is the reasoning behind it. Okay, good for you.
"Can you tell me what the difference was between the Bushmaster M4A1 that I bought just after the ban and one I could have bought during the ban?"
Nathan, you know I can't. :) But I can google for a few hours, if you think it would help. ;)
As I stated earlier, I am not against citizens having guns. As for you being there in the VT situation with your own weapon, if you were a student, I'm not all that sure that you would be allowed to have one in your dorm room on campus. If you kept it in your car, how would that have been helpful? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Because that's where the shooting first began, a teacher, who might be allowed to have a weapon, would not have been involved until the shooter went across campus. Your argument may sound good on the surface, but on closer inspection I don't know that it would hold water.
As for assault weapons, I listened to testimony from law enforcement during the hearings. THEY don't like to have to deal with them. True, many of those kinds of weapons out there were gotten illegally, but just what are you going to do with one? Hunt with it? Hang it in the back of your pickup? Carry it under your coat, in case you're the innocent victim in a street crime? I think it's more the "just having one" that is the reasoning behind it. Okay, good for you.
"Can you tell me what the difference was between the Bushmaster M4A1 that I bought just after the ban and one I could have bought during the ban?"
Nathan, you know I can't. :) But I can google for a few hours, if you think it would help. ;)
WSClark said:
I can assure you that I would not want to be anywhere near Nathan if he had a gun.
Concealed Carry - any reasonable citizen that wants to have a permit should go for it.
I would imagine that most carriers would have responded like Fredo in the Godfather if faced with a situation like VTech today. Unfortunately, those are the facts.
Concealed Carry - any reasonable citizen that wants to have a permit should go for it.
I would imagine that most carriers would have responded like Fredo in the Godfather if faced with a situation like VTech today. Unfortunately, those are the facts.
Nathan said:
WS Clark,
Anyone that had gone to a blog meetup with myself was around me with a gun.
They all survived.
Predistined,
I said that I would like to be able to carry concealed on campus.
Right now you can't. My point was that if you could it would help prevent things like this from happening.
So called "assualt" weapons are hardly used in crime at all. Look at the statistics. It is mainly hand guns.
Either way, the ban on "assualt" weapons didn't do anything, which was my point.
All it did was prevent me from having a bayonet lug, collapsable butt stock, and flash suppressor. Functionally I could buy the exact same weapon.
Anyone that had gone to a blog meetup with myself was around me with a gun.
They all survived.
Predistined,
I said that I would like to be able to carry concealed on campus.
Right now you can't. My point was that if you could it would help prevent things like this from happening.
So called "assualt" weapons are hardly used in crime at all. Look at the statistics. It is mainly hand guns.
Either way, the ban on "assualt" weapons didn't do anything, which was my point.
All it did was prevent me from having a bayonet lug, collapsable butt stock, and flash suppressor. Functionally I could buy the exact same weapon.
Nathan said:
I am also a Marksmanship Instructor in the Marine Corps. ~I teach Marines how to shoot.
While in Camp Falujah I helped run 14 different ranges training over 1000 Marines and Sailors in Enhanced Marksmanship.
I have voluntarily taught members from my church group weapons handling and safety while taking them to the range for free.
I was a volunteer Hunters Safety Instructor in the state of Kansas.
If you are afraid of me with a gun, then it is probably because you are threatening my life or someone elses around me.
Or you could just be a liberal dweeb.
While in Camp Falujah I helped run 14 different ranges training over 1000 Marines and Sailors in Enhanced Marksmanship.
I have voluntarily taught members from my church group weapons handling and safety while taking them to the range for free.
I was a volunteer Hunters Safety Instructor in the state of Kansas.
If you are afraid of me with a gun, then it is probably because you are threatening my life or someone elses around me.
Or you could just be a liberal dweeb.
WSClark52 said:
"If you are afraid of me with a gun, then it is probably because you are threatening my life or someone elses around me.
Or you could just be a liberal dweeb."
None of the above Nathan - I just don't like you and I certainly do not trust you. I don't care if you are the greatest shot in the history of the world. I would take my chances with protecting myself and my family long before I would entrust anyone I care about to you.
And I didn't say I would be afraid - I said I wouldn't want to be anywhere around you.
You are not a nice person, Nathan, and that is why I would not want to breath the same oxygen as you.
Or you could just be a liberal dweeb."
None of the above Nathan - I just don't like you and I certainly do not trust you. I don't care if you are the greatest shot in the history of the world. I would take my chances with protecting myself and my family long before I would entrust anyone I care about to you.
And I didn't say I would be afraid - I said I wouldn't want to be anywhere around you.
You are not a nice person, Nathan, and that is why I would not want to breath the same oxygen as you.
im1096 said:
"I have voluntarily taught members from my church group weapons handling and safety while taking them to the range for free."
Does that sentence strike anyone besides me as incredibly hilarious? It gives a whole new meaning to "organized religion!"
Does that sentence strike anyone besides me as incredibly hilarious? It gives a whole new meaning to "organized religion!"
WSClark said:
Well, at least they didn't force him to teach gun handling at his church.
Bullets for Christ!!!!
Naw, just doesn't have the right ring to it.
Bullets for Christ!!!!
Naw, just doesn't have the right ring to it.
Predestined said:
"Right now you can't. My point was that if you could it would help prevent things like this from happening."
Maybe. There are a lot of variables to consider. How do I know that you or someone like you won't totally lose it someday and become, not the savior in a situation like this, but the shooter? I'm not saying it's likely.
There would have to be a lot of things come together at a certain point in time for you to be able to be where needed on a large campus. Of course, I'm assuming that you aren't talking about anybody and everybody on campus being armed, but a select, trained few. That's still no guarantee.
From what little I've heard today about what happened, it seems someone screwed up. Maybe a lot of someones.
Just because I don't personally like guns, doesn't mean I think nobody should have them. We've discussed this before, Nathan, so there's no reason to go over it again. Freedom comes with responsibililty. Beause of those who aren't responsible (not you, but others), there are laws and restrictions. If my eyesight is bad, I can't get a license to drive a car. If I have certain criminal things on my record or I'm not mentally stable, I shouldn't be able to own a gun.
Maybe. There are a lot of variables to consider. How do I know that you or someone like you won't totally lose it someday and become, not the savior in a situation like this, but the shooter? I'm not saying it's likely.
There would have to be a lot of things come together at a certain point in time for you to be able to be where needed on a large campus. Of course, I'm assuming that you aren't talking about anybody and everybody on campus being armed, but a select, trained few. That's still no guarantee.
From what little I've heard today about what happened, it seems someone screwed up. Maybe a lot of someones.
Just because I don't personally like guns, doesn't mean I think nobody should have them. We've discussed this before, Nathan, so there's no reason to go over it again. Freedom comes with responsibililty. Beause of those who aren't responsible (not you, but others), there are laws and restrictions. If my eyesight is bad, I can't get a license to drive a car. If I have certain criminal things on my record or I'm not mentally stable, I shouldn't be able to own a gun.
Dave Shuck said:
I know that I am obviously not in step with the general group think of the WV gang, but I put this question out regardless at risk of being flamed (or minimum not winning a popularity contest!) if you guys would so indulge me. From some of the comments I am reading it kind of sounds like some are pointing to a lack of gun laws being the underlying problem, and I pick up on an insinuation that more restrictive gun laws might have somehow affected this situation?
This [insert whatever descriptive term here] just committed 32 counts of murder. What kind of deterrent do you feel that a gun law would be? Do you feel that an extra $2500 fine would have been the thing to keep him from mass murdering people? I am obviously missing something every time this debate comes up, but it seems to me that we already have the whole "murder" part covered under the law. What more should we tack on there?
This [insert whatever descriptive term here] just committed 32 counts of murder. What kind of deterrent do you feel that a gun law would be? Do you feel that an extra $2500 fine would have been the thing to keep him from mass murdering people? I am obviously missing something every time this debate comes up, but it seems to me that we already have the whole "murder" part covered under the law. What more should we tack on there?
lindainks55 said:
Dave, NO GUN LAW could have prevented what happened yesterday and we'll never know if lives could have been saved had someone in that engineering hall had a gun on them. I'm guessing yes. Maybe with enough time some experts will come up with what could have turned this person into a murderer, but it will never be anything better than an educated guess.
I don't think we'll ever come up with enough plans or laws to prevent monsters and their actions.
I still feel like I want to hug someone.
I don't think we'll ever come up with enough plans or laws to prevent monsters and their actions.
I still feel like I want to hug someone.
im1096 said:
((((Linda)))) I can only give you a virtual hug, but if I could, I'd hug you in person.
I agree that NO gun law could have prevented yesterday's tragedy. Only law-abiding citizens consider the law before acting. Criminals generally have no respect for the law whatsoever.
I honestly don't know what the answer is, Dave, but I'm pretty sure that adding more guns to the mix isn't going to be helpful. Arming instructors and/or selected trained students - as has been proposed elswhere - can only lead to more bloodshed, confusion and sorrow.
I agree that NO gun law could have prevented yesterday's tragedy. Only law-abiding citizens consider the law before acting. Criminals generally have no respect for the law whatsoever.
I honestly don't know what the answer is, Dave, but I'm pretty sure that adding more guns to the mix isn't going to be helpful. Arming instructors and/or selected trained students - as has been proposed elswhere - can only lead to more bloodshed, confusion and sorrow.
Dave Shuck said:
"Arming instructors and/or selected trained students - as has been proposed elswhere - can only lead to more bloodshed, confusion and sorrow."
I am not sure that your statement I am quoting above is a known fact. I think the words "could possibly" might easily be swapped with "can only". I have a feeling that someone with a CCL could have quite possibly reduced the bloodshed yesterday, but I don't claim to know that as a certainty. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is *the* answer, but I certainly cannot rule that out as something that could have put a dead stop to yesterday's tragedy.
Believe me, I don't claim to have the answers but I can ask a lot of questions!
I am not sure that your statement I am quoting above is a known fact. I think the words "could possibly" might easily be swapped with "can only". I have a feeling that someone with a CCL could have quite possibly reduced the bloodshed yesterday, but I don't claim to know that as a certainty. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is *the* answer, but I certainly cannot rule that out as something that could have put a dead stop to yesterday's tragedy.
Believe me, I don't claim to have the answers but I can ask a lot of questions!
Vaughn Tolle said:
From cnn.com; shooter was a South Korean English major, age 23; Cho ?????? (cannot recall); described as a loner, lived in one of the residence halls, not the one where the first shootings occurred; one of the two weapons recovered at the Engineering building was used in the first incident.
There was some discussion last night about how easy it is in Virginia to purchase weapons; from a receipt in the shooters backpack, traced back to a gun shop; apparently purchased one of the handguns Friday (13 April).
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
There was some discussion last night about how easy it is in Virginia to purchase weapons; from a receipt in the shooters backpack, traced back to a gun shop; apparently purchased one of the handguns Friday (13 April).
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
lindainks55 said:
im says it ALL when she says, "Only law-abiding citizens consider the law before acting." We have laws covering everything. We have laws that are never or seldom enforced. Sometimes laws that need tweaking aren't, instead a new law is passed that might even conflict with the old law. With or without laws most people have moral standards of conduct that probably surpass the letter of the law.
I personally don't choose to be around people who won't/can't conduct themselves in a civil manner. It's why I don't blog at the place most of us first met. There are people there I think are cruel, uncivil, unpleasant, mean... If you ever read a poster who calls herself "GS" you would understand what I'm trying to describe. I just don't think it's healthy to be around that kind of behavior.
All that said, I don't think any expert has found THE way to determine who will cross the line and become capable of violence. Is it the person who can demean others verbally seemingly without giving it a second thought? Is it the person no one knows anything about because they don't share themselves? Is it both of them and everyone in-between too?
When violence does happen it is the person not their weapon who is the perpetrator. If they don't have a gun or knife or stick, the violent person will use their fist or whatever. IT IS THE PERSON, NOT THEIR WEAPON. No gun ever shot itself.
I grew up around guns. My Dad, Uncles, adult friends all hunted. Every house I was in had a gun cabinet. I don't ever remember being curious about guns, wanting to handle them just to handle them. I knew what they were, where they were, how they were used, how they were cleaned...
My first husband (father to all four of my children) took me skeet (is that the way it's spelled?) shooting. He loved shooting those clay pigeons. I thought the recoil of the gun (used both hand guns and long guns) was uncomfortable, the sound unpleasant, the smell not my favorite. He enjoyed it so much he wanted me to also. I just never did.
Is our world more violent today than it was when I was growing up? Or do we just have instant access to the news so we know about the acts of violence? I don't know. And, I suppose I could go look up facts and figures. Probably find facts and figures to support every position.
So I guess I'm going to continue to believe most people are kind and good and be aware that some aren't.
And thanks for the hug, im. Someday, somehow, we'll meet and share that in-person hug!
I personally don't choose to be around people who won't/can't conduct themselves in a civil manner. It's why I don't blog at the place most of us first met. There are people there I think are cruel, uncivil, unpleasant, mean... If you ever read a poster who calls herself "GS" you would understand what I'm trying to describe. I just don't think it's healthy to be around that kind of behavior.
All that said, I don't think any expert has found THE way to determine who will cross the line and become capable of violence. Is it the person who can demean others verbally seemingly without giving it a second thought? Is it the person no one knows anything about because they don't share themselves? Is it both of them and everyone in-between too?
When violence does happen it is the person not their weapon who is the perpetrator. If they don't have a gun or knife or stick, the violent person will use their fist or whatever. IT IS THE PERSON, NOT THEIR WEAPON. No gun ever shot itself.
I grew up around guns. My Dad, Uncles, adult friends all hunted. Every house I was in had a gun cabinet. I don't ever remember being curious about guns, wanting to handle them just to handle them. I knew what they were, where they were, how they were used, how they were cleaned...
My first husband (father to all four of my children) took me skeet (is that the way it's spelled?) shooting. He loved shooting those clay pigeons. I thought the recoil of the gun (used both hand guns and long guns) was uncomfortable, the sound unpleasant, the smell not my favorite. He enjoyed it so much he wanted me to also. I just never did.
Is our world more violent today than it was when I was growing up? Or do we just have instant access to the news so we know about the acts of violence? I don't know. And, I suppose I could go look up facts and figures. Probably find facts and figures to support every position.
So I guess I'm going to continue to believe most people are kind and good and be aware that some aren't.
And thanks for the hug, im. Someday, somehow, we'll meet and share that in-person hug!
Vaughn Tolle said:
A bit more; per abcnews.go.com, after the residence hall shooting, Cho returned to his dorm room, reloaded, left a "disturbing note" and then proceeded to the Engineering building (Norris Hall). The weapons used in the shootings had the id numbers thereon filed off (or attempted); the 9mm Glock was acquired in March.
Linda, I'll take a virtual hug today, if the real thing isn't readily available!
Linda, I'll take a virtual hug today, if the real thing isn't readily available!
lindainks55 said:
((((((((((((((((GROUP HUG)))))))))))))))))))))))
Real ones coming next time we're together!
Predestined said:
Maybe we all just need a group hug. :)
Dave,
Nathan and I have had an ongoing discussion about guns. He seems to think I want them all outlawed. Maybe, deep in my heart, I'd like that. But I tend to lean toward realism in my mind, and I don't advocate doing that. As Linda said, killing can be done in a variety of ways. Guns are only one of those. Would we outlaw the use of bare hands because people are strangled?
On the other hand, because some aren't responsible with their lives and actions, we have laws, with the intent to keep others safe. These laws won't stop everybody from doing "bad" things. Criminals will commit crimes, no matter what. Why? Because they don't believe they'll get caught or they lack the mentality or conscience to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws?
Anyway, that's my take on it. I'm not convinced that more gun laws would have stopped what happened at VaTech, nor am I convinced that if guns had been allowed on campus by some or even all, it might have been stopped before more lives were taken. I think the situation should be studied closely and all things should be considered.
Dave,
Nathan and I have had an ongoing discussion about guns. He seems to think I want them all outlawed. Maybe, deep in my heart, I'd like that. But I tend to lean toward realism in my mind, and I don't advocate doing that. As Linda said, killing can be done in a variety of ways. Guns are only one of those. Would we outlaw the use of bare hands because people are strangled?
On the other hand, because some aren't responsible with their lives and actions, we have laws, with the intent to keep others safe. These laws won't stop everybody from doing "bad" things. Criminals will commit crimes, no matter what. Why? Because they don't believe they'll get caught or they lack the mentality or conscience to understand that what they are doing is wrong. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws?
Anyway, that's my take on it. I'm not convinced that more gun laws would have stopped what happened at VaTech, nor am I convinced that if guns had been allowed on campus by some or even all, it might have been stopped before more lives were taken. I think the situation should be studied closely and all things should be considered.
lindainks55 said:
Before Nathan accuses me of being a hypocrite and saying I demean Bush I'll give my reasons. Bush is a public person. Bush is being paid with tax dollars. He is supposed to be representing the American people. I am an American, I am a taxpayer and I think Bush is NOT representing the American people. He CERTAINLY is not representing ME! He is doing a very poor job in every way, in every area. His decisions and lack of leadership have bankrupted my country -- morally and financially. He is an embarrassment and a danger. He may not have opened fire on anyone personally, but he is responsible for the deaths of thousands of (mostly innocent) people.
If any of us could have warned people about the madman who was the shooter at Virginia Tech we would have. I am warning everyone that we have a madman in the position of POTUS.
im1096 said:
"I am not sure that your statement I am quoting above is a known fact. I think the words "could possibly" might easily be swapped with "can only". I have a feeling that someone with a CCL could have quite possibly reduced the bloodshed yesterday, but I don't claim to know that as a certainty. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is *the* answer, but I certainly cannot rule that out as something that could have put a dead stop to yesterday's tragedy."
You're absolutely right, Dave, it's NOT a known fact and that's why I didn't back it up with facts and figures and links. Further, since it IS my own opinion, I didn't feel the need to qualify it with a phrase such as "could possibly."
Semantics aside, neither more guns or more laws is the answer to this horrible tragedy. Humans are quirky and unpredictable and no amount of psychological study has yet been able to pinpoint exactly how to determine the breaking point for any one individual
You're absolutely right, Dave, it's NOT a known fact and that's why I didn't back it up with facts and figures and links. Further, since it IS my own opinion, I didn't feel the need to qualify it with a phrase such as "could possibly."
Semantics aside, neither more guns or more laws is the answer to this horrible tragedy. Humans are quirky and unpredictable and no amount of psychological study has yet been able to pinpoint exactly how to determine the breaking point for any one individual
WSClark said:
Well Dave, I would have to respectfully disagree with you. As a confirmed flame bait liberal, I have no problem with guns or gun owners. I have a problem with people that think guns are the answer.
For every crime that is stopped by a gun carrying CCW, there are many more people killed by the careless handling or storage of weapons.
There is this romanticized image of a citizen pulling his weapon and saving folks from a crazed killer. It's not going to happen.
The VTech massacre was horrific, but does anyone really think that if the professor or the RA been packing that they would have recognized the mortal danger and gotten off a clean shot? This is not about being a good shot or being a soldier in a combat zone. This is about recognizing mortal danger and responding accordingly.
When the killer stepped into the classroom, what would have prompted the professor to shoot? By the time he realized that people were in danger, he was on the floor dying of his wounds. Even if he had known that a killer could come through the door, it is unlikely that he could have defended himself.
As I have mentioned before, police officers, trained professionals have problems hitting a perpetrator at times. Soldiers in combat have difficulty firing their weapons at times. For Christ's sake, Mafia hit men have soiled themselves executing a hit. Shooting people is not a normal reaction.
The blame and responsibility for yesterday's incident lies strictly with the killer. It is not the fault of local law enforcement. It is not the fault of the legislators that defeated a motion to allow concealed carry on campuses.
The solution to the problem is not more guns, more concealed carry holders, armed professors or gun turrets on college campuses. The solution is to be able to identify those that would behave in a violent manner before the act on their impulses.
For every crime that is stopped by a gun carrying CCW, there are many more people killed by the careless handling or storage of weapons.
There is this romanticized image of a citizen pulling his weapon and saving folks from a crazed killer. It's not going to happen.
The VTech massacre was horrific, but does anyone really think that if the professor or the RA been packing that they would have recognized the mortal danger and gotten off a clean shot? This is not about being a good shot or being a soldier in a combat zone. This is about recognizing mortal danger and responding accordingly.
When the killer stepped into the classroom, what would have prompted the professor to shoot? By the time he realized that people were in danger, he was on the floor dying of his wounds. Even if he had known that a killer could come through the door, it is unlikely that he could have defended himself.
As I have mentioned before, police officers, trained professionals have problems hitting a perpetrator at times. Soldiers in combat have difficulty firing their weapons at times. For Christ's sake, Mafia hit men have soiled themselves executing a hit. Shooting people is not a normal reaction.
The blame and responsibility for yesterday's incident lies strictly with the killer. It is not the fault of local law enforcement. It is not the fault of the legislators that defeated a motion to allow concealed carry on campuses.
The solution to the problem is not more guns, more concealed carry holders, armed professors or gun turrets on college campuses. The solution is to be able to identify those that would behave in a violent manner before the act on their impulses.
Loading....