I guess I don't know when the trauma counts.  But trauma is not the same as "culture."

culture causes trauma. if there's a culture of competitiveness and a lack of compassion say in an office environment with someone like Milton from office space just because I watched it again last night, then that culture causes trauma which leads to Milton burning down the building. Is there any surprise that postal workers in the last ten years are suddenly well trained, nice to everyone and have stopped shooting each other?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

and if somebody is qualified and trusted to pack heat off campus, why not on campus?

Well, I really don't have a dog in this fight.  Why?  Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't carry a gun on me...because I am not 100% sure I could kill somebody.  And despite the bravura, I think that's true for a lot of qualified and trusted gun owners.  How many people would act with the coolness of Jeanne Assam and take down a classroom shooter?  Or how many would be diving under desks, flipping out, blasting indiscriminately or shooting himself like this trained professional.

Which leads to another wondering...why didn't anyone do anything?  I can only assume that there were students at the school who had some of the training you mentioned.  If someone has the presence of mind to use a gun in a situation, wouldn't a thrown desk be just as effective if one didn't have gun handy?  I understand a podium upside the head is effective in discouraging antisocial behavior.

Of course, I kid...but I still have to wonder.  And here's something else...the cop in the video?  I would bet dimes to doughnuts that he has a two year degree in criminal justice along with his academy training.  At least, that seems to be the norm these days.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Which leads to another wondering...why didn't anyone do anything?  I can only assume that there were students at the school who had some of the training you mentioned.  If someone has the presence of mind to use a gun in a situation, wouldn't a thrown desk be just as effective if one didn't have gun handy?  I understand a podium upside the head is effective in discouraging antisocial behavior.

I disagree. A maniac wielding a gun is somebody with lethal force. You expect undergrads to charge him with fire extinguishers and podiums? Not particularly useful against a maniac's shenanigans. If there is the expectation that bystanders step in and deal with crazy mauraders before the cops show up, then they should be allowed to do so in a way that protects them.

Of course, I kid...but I still have to wonder.  And here's something else...the cop in the video?  I would bet dimes to doughnuts that he has a two year degree in criminal justice along with his academy training.  At least, that seems to be the norm these days.

That is exactly my point. You can have some random GED recipient become an armored car guard or something and its okay for them to carry on campus, yet one of the many students I taught in Idaho who were in the Guard or Army Reserve and had qualified with serious weapons are unable to carry in the university setting? Come on. It makes no sense. Couple that with the fact that licensed gun owners are as law abiding as police officers and I think you have a good argument for allowing CCW weapons holders to bring their weapons to campus.

Last summer there was a mass e-mail sent around work. Some psychopath was hanging out in the parking lot and jumping out at people and throwing rocks at their heads for some reason. Why? I don't know. Every month or so we hear about the latest person mugged outside the building or in the surrounding area. Last year they arrested somebody for loitering, and it turns out he had an active warrant against him for murder. There are regular reports of break-ins and shootings around campus. Why should people who work or visit here be prohibited from carrying on campus if they are allowed to every other place they travel to?

How many people would act with the coolness of Jeanne Assam and take down a classroom shooter?  Or how many would be diving under desks, flipping out, blasting indiscriminately or shooting himself like this trained professional.

I've thought about that myself.  I'm pretty cool under stress, but If I happened to be armed and on the site in the Virginia Tech incident, I wonder if I could have distinguished between the actual shooter and some other armed citizen attempting to deal with him, and whether the police would have been able to distinguish between me and the shooter.

I've thought about that myself.  I'm pretty cool under stress, but If I happened to be armed and on the site in the Virginia Tech incident, I wonder if I could have distinguished between the actual shooter and some other armed citizen attempting to deal with him, and whether the police would have been able to distinguish between me and the shooter

I don't know. That is one of the reasons why I would choose not to carry a weapon. I personally don't want that level of responsibility. However, I used to work EMS and we'd get dumped into stressful situations quite unexpectedly (you get called for a hurt shoulder and find some dead woman with a head in a bucket, a call for chest pain results in you unexpectedly barricading yourself in the living room because what actually happened is some jerk beat on his wife and the 911 operator didn't ask the right questions, etc). But, most people were able to keep their cool under the situations. Why? Because of training we were able to overcome the innate "fight or flight" reactions.

I would assume gun owners (somebody tell me if I am full of crap on this) would go through training in "Real Life" self-defense uses of their weapons to avoid freezing up. Also, since many people had military experience I would assume that would be drilled out of them.

In regards to the cops not knowing who is who, I would assume police just don't show up to a crime scene and start hosing the area liberally with bullets. If you were shooting at some Psycho and the cops showed up and yelled, "Drop the Gun! Show me your hands! etc" I would imagine you would be the only one of the two that would comply and the cops would know who is who. At worst they'd probably detain everybody involved until the stories could be straightened out.

I would assume gun owners (somebody tell me if I am full of crap on this) would go through training in "Real Life" self-defense uses of their weapons to avoid freezing up.

Yes, you're full of crap on it.  I'm a gun owner, and I went through training to properly fill out and sign a check.

Now, if I was an EMS, I'd enroll in some sort of martial arts program that involved grappling, like aikido, judo, tai chi or jiu jitsu, because of the sort of things you mentioned.

Yes, you're full of crap on it.  I'm a gun owner, and I went through training to properly fill out and sign a check.

I apologize. Because I don't think my explanation was clear enough. Sure, in some states the requirements for gun ownership (no carrying outside your property) are fair to poor at best. And that is cool given the text of the 2nd amendment. The point I was trying to (poorly) make is that  pro-gun control people generally believe cops are some superhuman type people. Therefore, logically, if you could show that you meet or exceed the training given to average cops you should defeat their objections to average folks carrying in public.

Look, I support your right to carry. I'm just thinking of ways to overcome the objections of everybody else.

I used to be very pro-carry, but then I lived in a state (Alaska) where open carry is legal.  The only people I ever saw carrying guns (except when they were going out into the woods) were people I didn't think had the maturity or good sense to handle them.  I saw some seriously stupid gun handling, too.

Nowdays I think that if you want to have a gun, you should get some serious safety training.  I'm not really decided on whether allowing concealed carry is a good idea, but I do think that a concealed carry permit ought to require even more training than simple possession.

Where did all those pictures of people putting flowers down the barrels of guns come from?

Was there more than one such picture? Were the guns held by MPs?

I must confess I am a bit confused as to what you are getting at, but a quick Google turned up an article describing the flower in the MP's gun barrel at the Pentagon which quickly became a defining photo of the 60s'.

Yeah, I know it happened once: I've seen the photo. What I wonder is if it happened more than once. I also wonder if there were more than two or three large antiwar protests. Sort of like there is a popular image that there were a lot of bra burnings at feminist rallies - conventional wisdom that hasn't got much basis in reality.

By the way, the protest that Isserman was discussing in that article was the same one when Abbie Hoffman said they were going to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon.

Here's that famous photo. Here's one of some super courageous teen standing up to The Man, i.e., a line of draftees who really wish they had student deferments. That student is like that guy from Tianamen Square who stood in front of the tank!

The war dragged on for eight more years.

That student is like that guy from Tianamen Square who stood in front of the tank!

Not really...you're probably thinking about some of the kids at Kent State.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

No, definitely not. The protests at Tienanmen Square were peaceful civil disobedience, but the National Guard at Kent State was met by violent thugs in the guise of students. Also, the Chinese people are subjects of a totalitarian state while the violent thugs at Kent State were privileged youths in a democracy.

Not really a good comparison.

Yeah...except for the part where...
-The whole thing was essentially over
-The campus shooters aimed at the people that were farthest away from them.
-Two of the people killed were walking between classes...one of them was an ROTC student.

Now, I'm not saying that these "thugs" didn't deserve a good tear gas eye wash and nightstick shampoo but still...

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

The campus shooters aimed at the people that were farthest away from them

I've never heard that before - unless by "aimed" you meant "happened to be pointing their rifles in the general direction."

Two of the people killed were walking between classes...one of them was an ROTC student

Yeah, so blame the rabble who started the trouble: the protesters. Obviously it would have been a better outcome if the protesters has been killed rather than bystanders, but...whaddaya gonna do?

This existence of this audio(scroll down) gives some credence that the shots were aimed...that and the FBI later found out that one of the campus shooters bragged about taking a bead on a particular student.

But you know, yer right...it's too bad that innocent bystanders got killed.  I'm starting to appreciate the neocon / paleocon / plain_old_con way of looking at things.  Seriously...why use a nutcracker when a sledgehammer will do just as well.  Remember, Extremism is the Defense of Extremism is no Vice.

Fun Fact:  Chrissy Hyndes of the Pretenders also participated in that protest.  How the ONG missed her is beyond me.  I mean, that's almost as bad as the legend of the dude that had Hitler in his sites during WWI, but missed.  Imagine all of the suffering that could have been avoided if Chrissy took a bullet, eh?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Hey, look at it this way. If all those college kids had been packing, they could have defended themselves!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

...why use a nutcracker when a sledgehammer will do just as well

Wait, are you talking about the National Guard or the campus rabble?

"Wait, are you talking about the National Guard or the campus rabble?"

I'm talking about Chrissy Hynde

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

On the one hand, we have a bunch of college kids out protesting the American invasion of Cambodia.  They got loud.  They probably threw shit at the National Guard.  Maybe some of them yelled they ought to rush the soldiers.  A group of them had earlier set fire to the campus ROTC building.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of National Guard troops, probably between weekend drills and not all that well trained in crowd control or police tactics.  They're armed to the teeth with M-1s without the typical crowd control instruments like batons or mace (they did use tear gas however).  I invite you to read the entire wikipedia entry.  It goes on to say that officials tried to cover up what happened by saying the Guardsmen were fired on first by snipers (a claim which was never substantiated).

You say blame the rabble who started the protests.  I say, if you're going to blame them, then you have to blame Ohio governor James Rhodes for calling out the National Guard to deal with what was essentially a police matter.  I'm struck by the notion that situations will get dealt with according to the assets you throw at a problem to fix it.  If you have an incendiary civil situation, do you send in the Marines to kick ass and take names later or do you first try to sit down with whomever is in charge on the other side to try to talk your way out of more violence and carnage?

 

Illegitimi non carborundum.

The National Guard is by and large trained to shoot things first and ask questions later.  If we're going to plan to use them as the police force of last resort, they need to be trained in police tactics, which they aren't.

When Johnson sent in the Army to control the Detroit riots, they were under strict orders to load their weapons only under the orders of an officer, and as a result only one person was shot by the Army, though more were shot by the National Guard.

I invite you to read the entire wikipedia entry.  It goes on to say that officials tried to cover up what happened...

I read it. So what? Misbehavior on the part of the officials or National Guard in no way ameliorates the culpability of the student protesters. If there had been a peaceful protest then no one would have died.

I say, if you're going to blame them, then you have to blame Ohio governor James Rhodes for calling out the National Guard to deal with what was essentially a police matter

One of the fundamental purposes of the National Guard is to suppress insurrections. The governor was right to use the National Guard against that large group of malefactors.

The Malefactors vs The Campus Shooters

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

If you approve of them deliberately shooting two students on the way to class far away from the protests, I assume you would approve of shooting the rest of the students at Kent State?  After all, why should those two be special?

If you approve of them deliberately shooting two students on the way to class far away from the protests...

That's a hell of an "if."

I do not approve of shooting students, but the Kent State shootings were clearly the result of unlawful activity on the part of student thugs. Why does all the blame get pinned on the National Guardsmen rather than on the folks who precipitated the event, the students?

Why does all the blame get pinned on the National Guardsmen

Because they had the guns.

One of the main principles of anger management is taking responsibility for your own actions.  The kind of people who get sent to anger management typically say "He (or she) made me do it" after they hurt someone, instead of accepting the truth that only they are responsible for their own actions.

Given your attitude toward that particular situation, I would not trust you to carry a gun.

One of the main principles of anger management is taking responsibility for your own actions

I don't doubt that there were many students who took part in the protests and later felt  guilt and remorse because of the killings. Those who did not feel remorse are, as you correctly point out, candidates for anger-management training.

Given your attitude toward that particular situation, I would not trust you to carry a gun

Would you trust me to throw rocks and bottles at the "pigs"?

Would you trust me to throw rocks and bottles at the "pigs"?

Not only that, but I fully expect to see you on the barricades in front of the cigar salon once the liberals take power.

Fight the power, Z...Fight the power.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Not one student shot anyone, and yet you continue to blame them for the deaths.  I wouldn't trust you with any sort of weapon, whether gun, bottle or rock.  No doubt you would claim that anyone you hurt had it coming.

Not one student shot anyone, and yet you continue to blame them for the deaths

The students provoked the National Guard troops with wanton disregard for the possible consequences. Of course they shoulder some of the blame.

I wouldn't trust you with any sort of weapon, whether gun, bottle or rock

What about a butcher's knife? Or a harpoon? Or an alligator?

The students provoked the National Guard troops

Translation: "It's not my fault, she knows how I get."

You seem to be confused about the basic facts of the situation. I'll give you the Cliffs Notes version: The student protesters were the bad guys and the National Guard were the good guys. The good guys were sent in to enforce the law. If the bad guys had behaved themselves there would have been no reason to send in the National Guard.

Blaming the National Guard troops for the deaths of bystanders is facile. The proximate causes of the deaths were the bullets fired by the National Guard, but the ultimate cause was the thuggish behavior of the protesters.

I'll give you the Cliffs Notes version: The student protesters were the bad guys and the National Guard were the good guys.

Everyone thinks he's the good guy and his victim is the bad guy.  But shooting at unarmed people makes you, no matter how much you admire your own moral sensibilities, the bad guy.  So does bayoneting them.  So does lying about being shot at first.

The protesters may have been out of hand, but that doesn't excuse shooting at them.

Isn't there enough blame for both?

Isn't there enough blame for both?

Yeah, sure. Why not? In fact, why not blame it on the governor, too? He's the one who ordered the troops in. It's not the protester's fault that the governor was so serious about his job.

Actually, I do.  After all, he's the one who ordered in National Guard troops with no police training with only lethal weapons and little in the way of riot gear, instead of mobilizing police from across the state.

After all, we can't be serious without killing some innocent people.

...ordered in National Guard troops with no police training with only lethal weapons and little in the way of riot gear, instead of mobilizing police from across the state

The National Guard wasn't sent in to write summonses for jaywalking - the students were rioting and had been for a couple days. Furthermore, you suppose that Ohio police had the structure and means to organize and travel to Kent State at a moments notice, and also that they possessed the necessary training and equipment to perform a riot-control mission.  There is, however, no evidence of that and upon even a moments reflection it seems unlikely to be the case.

And there's the lovely case of the police officer who told a 13 year old girl that he had bought her from her parents and then proceeded to prositute her.  

No one's infallible.

Exactly. So there is nothing mystical or special about police officers that should make them the only people  able to carry legally (within reason as mentioned above). Therefore, the right to choose to carry a concealed weapon should be extended to all citizens of good character who have proven themselves able to do so.

If one assumes that anyone can become mentally unstable (as there's no test that can guarantee 100 percent that a person will never be mentally unstable in the future) and extends a concealed weapon permit to all citizens of good character, there is exponentially a larger number of possible incidents with guns.

For instance, let's assume that there's a 1 percent chance that a person will become mentally unstable and shoot into a general public area.

If all citizens of good character carry guns, even though the percentage will remain at 1 percent, the number of incidents will rise because it's a larger number of population carrying guns.

I am not sure I agree with that. As a non-gun owner I have read that in one study, permit holders in Florida were found to be 500 times less likely to commit violent crime than average people.

However, if we assume crazy people will have "freak outs" at a constant rate I would assume a well armed populace would be less likely to allow another Virginia Tech. How far do you think that madman would have gotten if 5% or 10% of his fellow classmates had been carrying?

I had to think about your reply and my initial reaction for awhile to sort through and understand why I veer towards being pro gun-control.

I've shot guns at a few ranges (not well) with guns borrowed from a friend who is a gun-collector.  And there is something aesthetically pleasing about guns, particularly Colts and Remingtons with their ties to the West. And I am not against owning guns, but find myself disturbed by the notion of so many Americans carrying guns in public.

I did read the article you linked and found the statistics interesting.

But ultimately, I suppose that my reaction is more visceral rather than logical.  There is an idealistic streak in me that thinks that crime should be better controlled, that it shouldn't have to come down to individuals having to defend ourselves with guns as though we still lived in the Old Wild West.  

The case of a random person going off their meds is a story of chemical instability.  I am talking more about intentional crime and my own wishful thinking/hope/desire that we lived in a society that could find better answers to issues of crime.  

But ultimately, I suppose that my reaction is more visceral rather than logical.  There is an idealistic streak in me that thinks that crime should be better controlled, that it shouldn't have to come down to individuals having to defend ourselves with guns as though we still lived in the Old Wild West.  

The case of a random person going off their meds is a story of chemical instability.  I am talking more about intentional crime and my own wishful thinking/hope/desire that we lived in a society that could find better answers to issues of crime.  

If only crime could be controlled better. I also wish this were true. However, I live in an urban area that is drowning in taxes to cover bloated social services spending. Despite this fact, yesterday once again a local corner grocery store was robbed in broad daylight and some thug shot the owner repeatedly for no clear reason. This is happening commonly around here, around our metro area, and in other cities.

The neighborhood is inhabited mostly by nice, well meaning homeowners but we are bordered by areas where drug dealing and illegal shenanigans are common. These thugs frequently walk into the parts I and my neighbors live in and commit violent crime. I don't own a gun, but if that is what people need to feel safe in this area I would rather allow them to carry or own whatever they wanted. I would definitely have no problem allowing a shopkeeper to carry on his property. After all, what is the alternative? People moving out, stores sitting vacant, [my] property values dropping, and another area surrendered to the thug lifestyle? I think everybody can agree that is unacceptable.