Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Is there a link for the original quote?

Posted by Neil H. at April 23, 2007 07:38 PM

See, this is what we're talking about. You're just hanging there, waiting for an official response. God knows what could happen before the authorities arrive with help. Your mouse finger could permanently cramp from futilely hitting the refresh button over and over.

Fortunately, I, a bystander, have a CCLP (Concealed-Carry Linky Permit), and can help you out. Note, you need to replace an '0' with an 'o' and a '3' with an 'e' in the obvious places, due to Rand's spam filter.

Don't try this yourself, by the way, unless you've been properly trained.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 24, 2007 12:35 AM

Here is a question advocates of an armed campus might not want to consider: How many shootings have been prevented because someone was caught with a firearm on campus *before* they could do anything with it? Firearms that would otherwise have been permitted, right up until the moment they blew someone's brains out. I don't know the answer myself, but it's a question that hasn't even been asked by gun activists, let alone analyzed.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 24, 2007 04:53 AM

Another way to stop people with guns is to thoroughly enforce gun free zones. Another useful goal is to have the same or more intensity of CCTV as the Brits do in public areas.

It's funny how yesterday's post on the same general subject, a "reality free zone" had comments that were either:
(a) we live in the safest society in human history, or
(b) it is absolutely of value and necessary to carry a gun
I guess if you believed both (a) and (b) at the same time, that defines you as paranoid.

This may explain the trigger happy-ness of at least some of the commenters. If you walk around expecting the worst with the "safety off" darn, every cat in a bush represents a real live threat.

Guns and Books don't mix. Unless we are in the middle of a war. Not when most people appear to think we live in the safest of all possible worlds. That is unless one is paranoid, which may be true.

Posted by Offside at April 24, 2007 05:16 AM

Another way to stop people with guns is to thoroughly enforce gun free zones. Another useful goal is to have the same or more intensity of CCTV as the Brits do in public areas.

Just as an example, the VT campus is spread over more than 4 square miles. It has about 100 buildings and 25,000 students, many of them who live off of campus. Pray tell us how you realistically expect to thoroughly enforce a gun free zone on something that size? How many cops, how many CCTV systems, how many metal detectors will it take to turn an open campus into a police state?

Or, will you finally realize that gun free zones are an absurd, unenforceable idea that sound good but are completely unworkable? Here's your first clue - criminals and those bent on criminal acts don't obey the law. Virtually the entire US has been declared as an "illegal drug free zone." How well has that worked?

Posted by Larry J at April 24, 2007 06:30 AM

Well, I think Rand should declare the comments an irony-free zone. ;^)

Posted by Jay Manifold at April 24, 2007 07:10 AM

OffHisRocker: "Guns and Books don't mix."

Stupid, stupid stupid. Books and chainsaws don't mix either, nor do books and tennis rackets.

What does that moronic statement mean anyway?

Fact 1: law abiding gun owners STOP crime, gun crime and other types of crime.

Fact 2: Liberal gun hating morons cannot fathom fact 1 regardless of the reams of data that supports fact 1.

Fact 3: Fact 2 will never change.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 09:20 AM

(a) we live in the safest society in human history, or (b) it is absolutely of value and necessary to carry a gun. I guess if you believed both (a) and (b) at the same time, that defines you as paranoid.

Well, let's try this logic somewhere else:

(a) Life expectancy and general health have never been higher.

(b) It is absolutely of value and might even be considered necessary to take steps to stay healthy (vaccines, exercise, wear your seat belt).

Does that seem like paranoid thinking?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 24, 2007 09:34 AM

Jeez Carl, I would have expected a better counter from you (I do hold you in high esteem, really.)

My (a) does not require (b) does it? They are essentially uncorrelated.

(Except of course in the minds of someone like Cecil who would probably argue that the higher life expectancy of Americans today is due to CCW. That's an aside..so don't be diverted.)

Your (a) absolutely requires (b). They are highly correlated.

Bad example.

Posted by Offside at April 24, 2007 10:03 AM

Cecil,

Let's narrow the sample space and ask a few reasonable questions:

(1) How many crimes have you stopped with your concealed weapon?

(2) How much self-induced psychological trauma have you inflicted on yourself by worrying about the sniper in the bushes next door?

By the way, calling me OffHisRocker was a nice touch. Pot calling the Kettle black etc.

Posted by Offside at April 24, 2007 10:31 AM

The answers are: one and ZERO in that order, you moron.

And the FACT is that many other CWP holders have halted criminal behavior using their personal firearms.

And your continued reliance on false as well as idiotic scenarios proves my list of facts 1-3 above. You are so wrapped up in your left wing ideological hatred of the concept of self reliance and self defense that you will not and can not accept the reality of people defending themselves with person firearms.

I use my real name, OffHisRocker fits your ideology to a tee.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 11:44 AM

Offside": "the higher life expectancy of Americans today is due to CCW."

Again the FACTS speak for themselves. In states that institute a concealed carry law crime has gone down, across the board. That includes violent crime, which includes murder which by definition would contribute to the rise in average life expectancy.

But I don't expect your ideology to be swayed by something as mundane as facts and truth.

Posted by at April 24, 2007 11:49 AM

Cecil,

Obviously you are traumatized by my comments. Here's something that should add to the feeling:

http://westbromblog.blogs*pot.com/2007/04/australia-safer-place-after-howards-gun.html

Coming from John Howard, hizzoner and helpmate in Iraq himself, no less. (delete the * in the link)

Mr. at,

You need a course in elementary statistics if you think CCW has had any impact on life expectancy. You obviously have no grasp of numbers. Hopefully you have a better grip of your CCW. Also, hopefully you neither a scientist nor an engineer lest you display your innumeracy to the detriment of society.

Posted by Offside at April 24, 2007 12:15 PM

"http://westbromblog.blogs*pot.com/2007/04/australia-safer-place-after-howards-gun.html"

Cecil will argue that since the bloggist can't spell, clearly he doesn't have a clue.

Posted by Andy at April 24, 2007 12:29 PM

On that ONE and ZERO thing, Cecil, are you quite sure the ONE wasn't self inflicted?

Posted by at April 24, 2007 12:53 PM

I do hold you in high esteem, really.

This has me worried. My goal is not esteem but fear, cf. Il Principe (N. Machiavelli, Florence, 1532), the kind of fear of public humiliation that makes you hesitate before you hit the Post button, double- and triple-checking that what you're about to say is logically foolproof. Thus we raise the level of public discourse above the current level of intellectual flaccidity that would make Hamilton and Madison weep.

But I digress. I see I must be clearer. Listen up.

Your mistake is in considering the whole (society) more than the sum of its parts (individual action). You find it strange ("paranoid") to think simultaneously that society is generally safe (your a) but I (a member of society) should take care to contribute to everyone's safety, starting with my own (your b).

What you've forgotten is that society consists of nothing more than the sum of all our individual actions. It's safe because -- and only because -- each of us does our part to make it safe. It can't be safe if we do nothing to make it safe. Society isn't some magical construct that has qualities independent of the behaviour of its citizens. Saying society is safe and therefore I need to do nothing to ensure my safety, or the safety of others, is the crazy thought. (Or just the thought of a parasite, if you assume others will take up the burden you're shirking.)

That's why I made the analogy to health. We are healthy and live longer because of what we all do as individuals. We have fewer lung cancer deaths because fewer of us smoke. We more often survive heart attacks because more of us take Lipit0r and crunch an aspirin and call 911 when the symptoms declare themselves. It would be insane to think, well, lung cancer rates are down, so I might as well smoke. Likewise, there's nothing "paranoid" about thinking lung cancer rates are down, and I should still not smoke. That's the sense in which gun advocates say society is safer than it's ever been, and I should still do my part (carry a weapon) to help make it safe.

What you probably want to do is accept this point but disagree with its premises. That is, you want to agree there's nothing "paranoid" about thinking that society is safe but individual action to make it so is sensible but the individual action of carrying a gun isn't the right kind of action, it actually decreases public safety, is too expensive for various reasons (accident, suicide, whatever), yadda yadda. That would be an intellectually respectable argument.

Posted by Carl Pham at April 24, 2007 02:41 PM

Try to keep up here.

In states that have enacted concealed carry laws all categories of crime have decreased. That is a proven fact.

All categories of crime includes violent crime.

Violent crime includes murder.

Fewer murders equals a longer life span, IE if someone isn't murdered at age Y they are apt to live to age Y plus X. Y plus X is greater than Y.

And lo and behold longer life spans is the very thing that increases the average life expectancy of any given group.

Now I know you were trying to be cute and or a smart azz. But in doing so you simply overlooked the facts. And the fact is that CWP laws do, ever so slightly, contribute to longer life expectancy.

And what you, or John Howard, think about gun control will not change the facts.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 02:50 PM

And Mr "blank" the one crime I stopped with my handgun was the attempted break in of my elderly mothers house by a convicted arsonist.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 02:55 PM

Carl, don't worry about the dangers of being subject to my esteem.

You've managed to slink out of answering my point on the relationship of (a) to (b). There is absolutely nothing you say in your last comment that I disagree with. On the other hand nothing in your last post has anything to do with the real substance of my comment.

You have however done it with such style that you still take the cake ;-) Unlike Cecil, who exhibits only a capacity to rant, you do have a certain class when you explore safe tangents to a failed argument.

Posted by Offside at April 24, 2007 02:56 PM

Cecil says:

"And the fact is that CWP laws do, ever so slightly, contribute to longer life expectancy."

You entertain me thoroughly today.

Newton and Liebniz also observed the fact that integration can take an infinite number of infinitely small quantities and come up with a reasonable quantity that is physically tangible.

So, Cecil go ahead and make an ass of yourself. Give us the delta by which the life expectancy of the average American was increased by CCW. Maybe some deep thought on the calculation will give you the insight you seem to need that logical instruction cannot deliver.

Posted by Offside at April 24, 2007 03:03 PM

Offside, you are the ass. If not, prove me wrong. Don't try to impress us with Newton and Liebniz observations, just prove me wrong. You can't.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 24, 2007 06:35 PM

Post a comment