Aramarth, et al., ya'll alright down there?

Yes, no worries. I wasn't on campus yet. Kinda wish I was though, that fucker would have had an eye opening experience had he tried to enter a classroom I was attending. I sit by the door and pre-arrange how to take someone out in every class (since Columbine really). Call it morbid, but that is the Marine in me. Yall better keep safe while I'm deployed, y'hear?

Good to hear.

A particularly glaring example of why not extending our concealed carry right to include colleges is a dumb idea.

i was wondering what the doc meant by that thread until i heard about 20mins ago.
it'll take a time before those from va who attended, or not, check-in.

I'm really glad to hear you're OK. How bad is it down there right now? I really hope you didn't lose anyone close to you. People are sick.

Minutes away! (Roanoke, Va) I am stunned and saddened by this senseless act of violence! Please, all pilots check in - And I mean all......

How many folks from VA? Glad to hear that you two at least are all right.

Yeah, It sucks.

hmm, concealed carry laws... so we can take one enormous senseless act of violence, unprecedented in its expanse... and just spread it out over a lot of little senseless acts of violence.

I think the real issue was the police not being on guard after the first incident.

Glad you're ok Aramarth

I agree with the doc. If a few students had been packing as soon as he fired from the doorway at the German class, there would have been a hail of bullets coming back at him. Most people however shoot quite poorly when being shot at, so the risk of friendly fire would have been quite high. Still more than 4 people would have made it out of the room. nice to hear yous are allright, i see mecha on the APL so he's ok (i think hes from VA). Any idea yet as to why this guy decided to shoot up the school?

Glad you're ok, Aramarth.

Shape, please keep in mind that in Virginia, open carry is the standard. A broadly available concealed carry licensing system already exists. For places that serve alcohol and buildings where effective screening to prevent/reduce the presence of weapons generally is an option (many public buildings, such as courts)... great, no reason that concealed carry should include that. But given the nature of universities, I see no reason to treat them differently from the norm here in VA and lots of reasons (enclosed spaces, lots of people) for treating them the same.

That the police didn't get "on guard" after the first incident is irrelevant; warning shots, so to speak, are rarely fired. The point is that you cannot rely on a police force to be your front line defense against this sort of thing. A citizenry conditioned away from the concept of and the training for self-defense, and prohibited from carrying weapons designed for that very task is one ripe for this sort of tragedy.

I'm with Shape. And however impossible it may be the solution is less guns, not more.

Fewer weapons, not more...

Pray tell, Smittens: do you think the passengers of United flight 93 would agree with you?

Lecter, that doesn't make any sense. What if the hijackers had had guns? (Besides the fact that this is really anecdotal and suffers from one of the major logical flaws, I'll leave it to you to work out which one)

All it takes is one gun to take out the only pilot on the plane.

I happen to believe that the second amendment is important, in the words of V from "V for Vendetta", people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

That being said, I don't believe its every postal carrier's right to protect themselves against perceived threats with lethal force.

A militia, I can appreciate a militia... but your average ignorant and underappreciated person? not so into that.

EDIT: If you want to train the entire populace of virginia on proper gun etiquette and expend the funds necessary to maintain that state of readiness continuously... I'm ok with that.

The hijackers had edged weapons; the passengers were unarmed: my point is that equal footing is better than unequal footing.

To answer your specific query vis-a-vis guns: If anyone who passed a federal background check and firearm licensing/training program, designed for citizens interested in being able to defend themselves and others, were allowed to carry a handgun* on domestic flights... it seems likely that taking hostages, to say nothing of the plane itself, would be a lot harder. Arming the pilots, even, would be better than nothing. Air marshals are good and well, but they're expensive and there's only so many you can place on any given flight.

Since we're speaking of the U.S., you duly recognize the Second Amendment's relevance (currently it's a hot topic for debate, since the D.C. Circuit just invalidated D.C.'s long-standing and Draconian anti-handgun legislation. Look for an appeal and perhaps a cert grant soon). Let me clarify something about it: it's one of those neat laws that involves a goal and a rule. First, the (explicit) goal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". This is the part that states what the rule is intended to accomplish. It is not, however, the part that says what the law is; that is the function of the rule. Which is: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, before this degenerates into what will eventually become the majority/plurality opinion and dissent(s) of the SCOTUS opinions resolving the Parker case... I'll just point out that the right enumerated is an individual one.

Your agreement with something regarding the importance of the Second Amendment seems rooted in the ability of people to keep the State from becoming physically secure. You're off your rocker. The U.S. Government cannot be deposed by the sort of force the Bill of Rights protects. Period. Nobody, no militia, no force on Earth is sufficient to engage in a serious military campaign against State authority perceivably run amok; this is true in most democracies. If you want to use violence to battle a government in a democracy, then you do what happened in V for Vendetta: bombs & marketing. The utility of the Second Amendment does not lie, if it ever did, in keeping the modern State afraid of its people.

But let us deal with your disgusting statement about the right to protect oneself: you're not equipped to engage in a debate about U.S. constitutional law, it's not the level of generality at which I'm engaging you, and I really don't feel like cracking open Westlaw to start marshaling precedent and theory.

So, what's a right 'to keep and bear arms' good for?

I posit that it is a moral right for an autonomous individual to have an effective means of self-defense available, when the State cannot provide for their immediate physical safety.

Such a right flows from the most important right an individual can posses: to not be unjustly deprived of life. That such is the premier right seems simple, since it is prerequisite to the exercise of all other rights.

Are citizens in a democracy autonomous? Yes; we trust every single one of them to vote, and thereby decide the very form of the State. In the U.S., the Bill of Rights is largely a negative system of checks on the State's authority to regulate the individual. It seems beyond debate that if there ever was a group of individuals that could be called autonomous, it would U.S. citizens. Your snide comment about the average individual being ignorant, under-appreciated (by which I suppose you mean irrational and likely to act out) and unable to fairly decide what threats objectively require lethal force fly in the face of the power accorded individuals in a democracy. They're also repugnant to any philosophy that conceives of adult citizens as free beings until they prove undeserving of such rights and responsibilities.

Are handguns** necessary for providing the individual with an effective means of protecting life and limb from aggressive individuals or groups within a democracy? Yes, for three key reasons. First, they are the most effective weapon widely available in a democracy. By this I mean that if the common violent criminal seeks a tool with which to threaten or harm the individual, chances are that they will select a handgun. Second, by their nature, handguns can only be effectively defended against by counter-use; to suggest that individuals wear kevlar to protect against criminals with guns would be less than cogent. If you want to stop a man with a handgun, or any gun, from shooting people... you more or less have to shoot him. Non-lethal options are too ineffective. Most are not useful at the required ranges; none are sufficiently effective at incapacitation to require an individual to stake their life on them. Third and most importantly, individuals vary greatly in physical ability, though not at all in their fundamental right to be free from criminal aggression that threatens their lives. The old quip that "God made men; Sam Colt made them equal" is not incorrect. An individual attacked by a group or by a larger assailant may most effectively defend themselves by use of a handgun. To sum up: When phasers set no higher than 'heavy stun' can be made available to individuals, I will probably concur that the right to own a lethal weapon is no longer morally necessary. Until such time, I will have to disagree.

Can the State provide for effective defense of all citizens such that an individual right to possess handguns (the right to the means of an effective self-defense) is rendered moot? Sometimes, but usually not. As I mentioned above, there are times when I believe that the State could preclude the possession of any weapons--because they could, in fact, so control the environment that no need for self-defense should arise. A court house is an excellent example: lots of cops, lots of searches, and almost no possibility that a fellow being could kill you before the State could be expected to intervene.

Most of the world, even most of the U.S., is not a court house. In fact, the very openness of a democracy (England excepted with increasing frequency... the new and interactive camera/microphone system is increasingly scary) cuts against the idea that the State could so protect its citizens as to reasonably (more importantly, morally) demand that they go unable to help themselves. The VT campus, any campus (or Grounds:), is a perfect example. Nearly anywhere humans gather in a democratic society, there are few checks and fewer police. Prevention, if it is to occur, must be the domain of citizens.

This is not to say I support an unqualified right to individual handgun ownership: your counter-arguments about the irresponsibility of human beings and the immediate availability of an instrument of almost casual lethality being a poor combination are not without weight, not by any means. My response is two-fold.

First, licensing is not a bad idea. Those who oppose it seem to resist either on basic libertarian principles (it's none of the State's damn business if I own a weapon) or out of more crazy (it's a prelude to confiscation) concerns. VA's concealed carry permit system, at least in the obtaining stage, seems a model. Any interested citizen who is 21 or older can apply and go through a basic criminal and mental health background check. Their reasons for desiring a concealed weapon are probed, but there is no requirement (cf. NYS, where I have to look next) that they be in a position that the State thinks sufficiently precarious as to justify a handgun. There is a mandatory safety and proficiency class, at the citizen's expense; included in the training is a discussion of the relevant state laws on use of force in self-defense. The latter part there helps address your concern that people will use lethal force in situations where hindsight shows that perhaps it was unjustified.

Second, and I think far more important, the current mindset of the population would have to change, at the very least among those who choose to carry weapons. By this I mean that self-defense must be viewed not as 'nutty vigilante until proven necessary', but as a legitimate response to certain threats and something that many people need to engage in during their lives. More importantly, I would say, is that the counter-assumption, that only specially trained and licensed law enforcement professionals have any valid right or reason to be using force, must be dispelled. The average citizen is presumed able to vote, to drive a car, to drink alcohol and answer for the consequences of their drunken behavior, to smoke, to eat as they see fit, to make any manner of choices that impact not only their continued freedom but the health and life of those around them. A self-selecting group of citizens, screened for possible Rambo-wannabes and taught how to identify when using their weapons is justifiable, the consequences of errors in aim or judgment, and the technical aspects of usage... is far less dangerous than a broad permission to guide a couple of tons of metal around on the public roads. And the benefits are far more tangible: possibly 32 more warm bodies in Blacksburg, VA, for example.

*Yes, low velocity rounds; nobody likes decompression.
**It is these that I think are currently the ideal starting point for our discussion as they have, by and large, only one purpose: killing human beings.

Obviously when one's life is threatened, one would LOVE a gun. I'm sure I would in a dangerous situation. But if there were no weapons, it would be much easier. One guy with just his fists can't do much...

--> [off topic]

Also, since we're voicing opinions, guns are stupid and any argument in their favour only serves to propagate violence. The reasons may be good (although they usually aren't), but the end effect is always violence, no matter how you slice it, and that's not excusable. Ever. However, because of the high quantity of stupid people in the world, perhaps we should all advocate universal gun ownership with free concealed carry permits. And we should encourage students to carry them. Because, you know, ever time I see some 19-year old wannabe gangster pull a knife (which I've seen more than once, actually) on somebody, I just wish that everybody in the room had a high-caliber handgun hidden under their shirt. But, yeah. Everybody will kill everybody else and the energy, food, and water crises will be solved. Sounds like a plan to me. When the smoke clears, you can find me somewhere that the guns aren't.

(1) Smittens: please see my point about disparate raw physical strength. To say nothing of the general availability of illegal weapons in general, handguns in specific (see, e.g., D.C.).

(2) Roguelazer: weapons are used for violence, true. If you seriously want to argue that violence qua violence is always A Bad Thing, please go to the kiddies table where you belong; there you can hash it out in your highly nuanced terms with mr bean of the post immediately below. Minimalists* need to realize that shooting someone who pulls a knife on you (all else being normal, i.e., not justifying their pulling a lethal weapon out and threatening your life) is nothing if not a positive good, while pulling a knife on someone is almost never acceptable.

*My favorite term for those who seem to seek an overall reduction in the level of violence in the world, arguing that shooting a would-be Klebold or Harris is the moral equivalent of Klebold or Harris gunning down a classmate, because both involve shooting a human being. Oddly enough, the only people minimalists ever succeed in persuading to disarm are those who would never use violence in an aggressive manner in the first place.

i think that if we get rid of all guns then people will just find a new and efficient method of killing people and that if we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have them