I'm a student at Northern and have had to live through this horrible tragedy and I just want to say that I think bringing even more guns on campus is the last thing we should do...

I can understand what you're saying, Jay Tea. I live in the most gun-liberal state in the union, Utah. Yet in a state that has one of the lowest crime rates in America, (this is not due to guns, it's due to the demographic of religious families) we had our own mall shooting a year ago, where 5 people died. Shit like this happens, no matter where you are, no matter who you are. People go crazy. I remember you gleefully blogging about a gunman invading a Hillary Cinton office in New Hampshire. "How cool is this?" That is a direct quote. Bottom line is that crazy people live in every state of the union, and a gun-toting electorate has not been shown to hinder the whims of people that go nuts. If someone goes crazy somewhere, they're going to kill some people. Guns belong in the hands of law enforcement officials, and that's it.

You don't understand what happened in Kirkwood at all. This happened in my neighborhood. You are totally misrepresenting this tragedy to fit your simplistic theory.

Officer Biggs and Ballman sheepdogs? You are a fucking moron.

I'm a student at Northern and have had to live through this horrible tragedy and I just want to say that I think bringing even more guns on campus is the last thing we should do...

Ryan, don't be dumber than absolutely necessary. The guy at Hillary's NH office did NOT have a gun. He had some road flares that he had half-assedly rigged to look like a bomb. No gun.

And as I said at the time, I was 99.5% certain that the situation would end peacefully, and it did. I was prepared to pay a very hefty price if I was wrong, but I was that confident that it would all turn out to be nothing.

And it did.

I also knew that the idiot with the fake bomb was mainly seeking attention and to be taken seriously, and I was NOT going to give him what he wanted.

But I actually cited an example where a "gun-toting electorate" actually DID stop a shooting, and numerous cases where the shooters were not challenged. Would you care to cite some examples to back up your own position?

I thought not.

J.

lava, in the classic metaphor, the "sheep" are the citizenry, the "wolves" are the criminals/terrorists, and the "sheepdogs" are the cops and military who protect the sheep. They can be just as ferocious as the wolves, but their goal is to protect, not to prey.

Would you care to use your local perspective to enlighten me how that is in error in the Kirkwood situation?

J.

JT, again I get the your point why the predictable reactionists miss it. If some students had been carrying or allowed to carry, maybe at least one or two of the now dead students would not be. And the assanine comment that gun carrying citizens dont' reduce crime, well, that is too assanine to comment on. ww

dr lava, I think you misunderstood the "sheepdog: metaphor. It's a compliment, not an insult; sheepdogs protect the sheep from the wolves. I am certain that Jay Tea meant no disrespect.

I agree that crazies will be crazies, but I like to think that CC permits will keep them guessing. An average, noncrazy citizen with a concealed weapon (and I support a person's having to prove he or she can use a gun, must as a person must get a driver's license*) could stop a crazy before he or she goes even further. Uniformed security are important, but sadly they are also obvious targets.

*And just as you don't have to have a license to own a car, Constitutionally you don't have to have a license to own a gun, just pass a background check (which I also support)

I perfectly understand the metaphor. I'm sorry I don't have time to explain the entire situation right now. I can only say that the killer was a very well known and very well liked person. Everyone knew him. He was a star athlete in Kirkwood. Why would the sheepdog object to a friendly?

Maybe Jay is speaking of "mind reading sheepdogs".

The situation is very complex. Did I mention Wal-mart is involved?

I'd just like to point out that a lot of these shootings happened right after the Supreme Court announced they would take the Heller case. While it's still a coincidence, that coincidence is incredibly uncanny.

And BTW, the Supreme Court made up its mind last week about the Heller case, when the Kirkwood city council got shot up. There is absolutely no way they would ever rule in favor of an individual right to own a gun. That would be like giving an official seal of approval to a threat to their own power.

This is a very complex issue, but I have to completely agree with Jay's point. If I send any of my kids to a campus that is a "gun-free zone", I am assuming that they'll be safe. The truth of the matter is that none of us is safe in an open area, and none of us is safe in an enclosed area without metal detectors. In my life, that means I'm not safe anyplace.

Most citizens who become licensed to carry a handgun and choose to go through the process are probably the most unlikely candidates to open fire on innocent victims.

If I find myself EVER in this type of situation, I surely hope there is at least one citizen exercising his or her right to bear arms, and I hope he or she is a CRACK SHOT.

We have long guns in our home - mostly pellet guns for target practice. All of my kids are crack shots with the pellet guns. These kids have been taught to respect guns, and woodstoves, and motor vehicles, and alcohol for that matter. The guns are locked up, and only my husband and I have the keys. I'm glad I'm a crack shot, sometimes to the embarassment of my husband and his friends. I hope to NEVER have to use a gun on a human, but here is the reality: if an intruder should force his way into my home and be armed, and the dogs don't stop him, I will.

"Did I mention Wal-mart is involved?"

What about Major League Baseball? The Illuminati? FEMA? I have a feeling - and you cannot prove it wrong since you were not there and he's a master of duisuise - that Dubya personally pulled the trigger and then left behind the body of an innocent well-liked athlete to confuse the coppers. He's like that. How long will the people of America allow George W. Bush to slaughter innocent citizens at malls, schools, churches and in their homes? He must be stopped!!

Dr Lava is correct. The Kirkwood shooter was a well known person to the City council, had been coming to City Council meetings for many years.
No one knows why he 'snapped' that particular meeting and not one of the many meetings before. No one could have predicted his behavior, unlike the others who had videotaped or posted You tube videos.

I think you have to remove the Kirkwood incident from the list, which is otherwise excellent.

Imhotep, I still don't see why the Kirkwood incident should be taken off the list of "nut with a gun starts shooting up people in a gun-free zone" stories -- dr lava's "I live near there and know so much more than you, but I'm not telling" protests notwithstanding.

Whether the guy had a grievance or not, valid or not, doesn't have any effect on the essential thesis above.

J.

dr lava - do you live in Kirkwood or Meachem Park?

Sorry Dr Lava, but I live in the area too and I'm calling bullshit on you. Why would those police officers object to a friendly you ask? Why indeed. Maybe because he's not as friendly as you claim. In fact Cookie was a trouble maker from the time Meacham Park was annexed into Kirkwood. He was cited at least 100 times for code violations and various municipal infractions including illegal dumping and the fact that he ran an unlicensed business out of his home. He'd received judgements against him totalling nearly $20,000 in fines and court costs, he assaulted a councilman, he routinely disrupted meetings by starting shouting matches and claiming that he was being persecuted. When the council wanted to ban him from the meetings entirely because he was such a disruptive pain in the ass Mayor Swoboda refused to let them because he thought it would be disrespecting Thornton's rights as a citizen. Yeah, this is a guy that the cops would never suspect because he was so well liked and everyone just loved him. My ass snowflake.

Cookie was well liked by some folks, but he was a royal pain in the ass too. He thought he was owed that contract work, and maybe he was promised the work but guess what - no business license NO CONTRACT dumbass. I'm sure that was somehow the council's fault too. Look, Cookie snapped for a number of reasons, like maybe realizing that he was bankrupt because of HIS OWN BEHAVIOR, or that he wasn't getting that big million dollar pay-day he expected from his federal lawsuit against Kirkwood because it was dismissed by the judge. I guess Cookie shouldn't have been acting as his own attorney, bet that's Wal-Mart's fault too, right? Anyway, I think the parking tickets may have been the last straw but he didn't go to city hall with a gun to make lemonade. Cookie wasn't a victim, he was a semi-literate hot head with a persecution complex and an ego that wouldn't let him accept that most of his problems were of his own making. So go peddle your bullshit somewhere else, I know the story and it's not the fantasy you're selling.

"Guns belong in the hands of law enforcement officials, and that's it."

Yeah, that would be perfect as long as there is a law enforcement official in every house, in every room of every building, in every classroom, on every street coner and prettymuch everywhere else, 24 hours a day.

Maybe we could just assign a team of personal law enforcent officials for every single person in the country so they can keep all under their protection 24/7.

Anything less than that Ryan, and your idea is moronic.

Guns don't kill but gun-free zones sure do.

Maruice,

How dare you suggest that someone be accountable for their own behavior! It's always the government's fault- unless the democrats control the government, then the problem is that the government is not big enough and more laws are needed! Get with the program man!

(/sarcasm off) (Just in case.)

Guns are one of those areas where the knee-jerk emotional reaction "make the guns go away" by not allowing regular citizens to carry will actually cause the opposite of the intended results. Try to take your emotions out of this and look at the results of where this has been tried. In places where regular citizens cannot own/carry crime goes up, in places where citizens can own/carry crime goes down. Perhaps this is counter-intuitive but it is reality.

The Church was not a "gun-free zone." Their guards were not sheepdogs, but armed members of their own flock that had chosen to act in the place of sheepdogs.

But they were still official, if volunteer, security guards who were sanctioned (does anyone know what New Life's stance was on regular members of the congregation carrying guns on the grounds?). At NIU there are campus police, and they are armed as well. You seem to be making the distinction between paid and unpaid sheepdogs, as if they don't serve the same purpose. I don't understand why you say this:

There was no Jeanne Assam on campus yesterday to stop the shooter. The college had made damned certain of that.

The college made damned sure there were a good deal of armed guards, they just couldn't get there quickly enough, as the entire shooting was over in a span of two minutes or so. The only way this man could have been stopped is if another student or teacher in that classroom, armed or not, was able to act quickly enough. You'll note I'm not making a case for Gun Free Zones here, but I also don't think we should be encouraging students to go to class armed.

You seem to be blaming NIU in this, or at least the culture that led them to declare the campus a gun free zone. I would say that is misplaced for at least one reason. Illinois has no concealed carry provision. Students can't carry guns in class (unless they're out in the open, I guess) because they can't carry concealed weapons in Illinois at all. NIU's Gun Free Zone is essentially meaningless.

I'm a liberal but not an anti-gun liberal. I support the second amendment for the same reasons the founders wrote it. But I'm not blaming NIU for this. It isn't their fault.

The same "culture" that created the "gun-free" zones is responsible for your not having a right to carry a concealed weapon, mantis. So no, that argument doesn't hold up.

Ok, but in any case the gun free zone is irrelevant in Illinois.

In the interest of truth in advertizing, wouldn't it be better if instead of calling them "gun free zones" they called them "defenseless victim zones" or "self-defense fee zones"?

Mantis,
There are not many armed NIU Police officers on campus, and they most emphatically do not regularly patrol buildings - that's handled by the unarmed University Security Guards.
No one is "blaming" NIU in particular, over the balance of the state of Illinois, so drop the feigned outrage.
People are hurting. Let us acknowledge that, and then take real steps to ensure real (not feel good) safety.
J

every time this happens, all the gun nuts come out in favor of "more guns everywhere," as if the only possible outcome of more guns is that more people will be saved. seems kind of counterintuitive to me, though- nuts with guns kill people, therefore the solution is to encourage more people to carry concealed weapons because none of the concealed weapons carriers will be nuts, all will be crack shots, and all will be there right in the nick of time like heroes. there are some other possibilities that could happen, too, like more people getting shot in the chaos.

as a liberal, i have conceded the gun war to conservatives. but i will say this- there is no stopping this phenomenon. we as a society have permitted a very liberal gun culture compared to almost any other country. it is easy to get a gun- if it weren't, many fewer psychos would have them. thus, the issue to me is not "more guns" vs l"ess guns," or how do we stop this. the issue is that we must accept this as par for the course in the society we have chosen for ourselves. if you support guns, and there are legitimaste reasons to do so, fine. but if you support very liberal gun laws, don't be shocked when people die. concealed weapons will simply not deter people whose aim it is to shoot people and then kill themselves. why is this not obvious to everyone?

My question would then be, mantis, did NIU declare itself to be a gun free zone or did someone else?

Whoever did, unless they built an inpenetrable barrier around the campus, then sweep every square inch of the campus to veryify that it is in fact gun free to begin with, then screened every single person and package that passes through that barrier, they should be legally liable for every death and injury cause by a person with a gun within the gun free zone they designated.

That makes sense richard b cheney, after all they outlawed drugs and now it is totally impossible for anyone to get any drugs anywhere. I'm sure if we outlawed guns the same would be true.

(/sarcasm off)

who said anything about outlawing guns? my point is that, more guns = more people die from guns. period. it is obvious. the evidence is plentiful. stop wringing your hands and accept this as the cost of doing business in america.

No one is "blaming" NIU in particular, over the balance of the state of Illinois, so drop the feigned outrage.

Jay certainly seems to be blaming NIU, at least in part.

And it's not feigned outrage, it's a legitimate objection from someone who is quite close to this tragedy as well. Many of the people involved are friends and colleagues.

"every time this happens, all the gun nuts come out in favor of "more guns everywhere," as if the only possible outcome of more guns is that more people will be saved. seems kind of counterintuitive to me,"

That's a given, your lack of understanding of a complex issue and your denigration of those that disagree with your viewpoint are the hallmarks of a close minded ideologue who will resist facts in evidence that disagree with his or her predetermined viewpoint. Let me suggest some reading material, try John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime. Shorter John Lott: More Guns in society does not equate to a rise in crime, gun violence, or accidental death. Funny fact, 39 states have conceal and carry laws that allow us poor ignorant citizens to protect ourselves with firearms and there's no blood in the streets of any of them, however in Washington DC - a city that you should love because it's virtually illegal for anyone who's not in law enforcement to possess a gun, the crime rate is through the roof and gun violence is rampant. How's that fit into your world view?

"concealed weapons will simply not deter people whose aim it is to shoot people and then kill themselves. why is this not obvious to everyone?"

Possibly because it is so obvious that we didn't think it was a point of contention? No one here is saying that allowing people to carry concealed weapons will deter someone who is determined to shoot people then kill themselves, what we are saying is that it is better to have an armed populous in that case. Or to put it another way let me give you this scenario:

You attend a conference at a convention center that is a "Gun Free Zone" with private security in evidence. You are seated comfortably in a crowded auditorium you note that there are exits located only in two areas, the front and rear of the room. As the guest lecturer starts two men stand up and head for the respective exits, as if to leave, only to chain and padlock the doors. When the speaker starts to protest the man nearest him pulls out a pistol and shoots him. You then become aware that both men now have pistols out, in fact they appear to be carrying more than one gun each, and are positioned in front of the now padlocked exits. As the gunmen begin to execute your fellow conference attendees which situation would you prefer exist:

A) No one else in the auditorium is armed. You have only one option, wait patiently for help to arrive and hope that by staying low hoping you can avoid getting shot until the police arrive or the gunmen run out of ammo.

B) Hope that someone in the room ignored the "Gun Free Zone" ignored the rules, is carrying concealed, and can engage the gunmen while you stay low and hope you can avoid getting shot.

cheney,

If it's obvious and the evidence is plenty would you care to share some with us?

Seems to me the evidence shows just the opposite. In fact where there have been stricker gun control laws enforced the crime rate has increased. I can't think of a single example otherwise.

who said anything about outlawing guns? my point is that, more guns = more people die from guns. period. it is obvious. the evidence is plentiful. stop wringing your hands and accept this as the cost of doing business in america.

richard b cheney

Funny, but your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Look at Florida, when they were debating liberalizing conceal and carry all the anti-gun liberals like you were up in arms, blood would run in the streets you all said, every citizen having a bad day was a potential dirty harry you all claimed, vigilantism would run rampant you threatened, and yet the result was...none of the above. Crime dropped slightly, including reports of gun violence. So if more guns = more people die from guns, why doesn't the statistical evidence support your theory?

You're problem is that the argument you use is discredited but rather than deal with reality you cling to the notion that it is not you, but the world that is askew. Well it's not the world. Fact is millions of Americans have conceal and carry permits and only the tiniest fraction will ever disharge their weapon outside of a firing range.

Obvious evidence:

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

Source: Morgan O. Reynolds, Crime By Choice: An Economic Analysis (Dallas: Fisher Institute, 1985), pp. 165-68