View Full Version : More Guns, Not Less, Would Prevent Shooting Massacres
The Reaper
08-29-2007, 17:41
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294954,00.html
John Lott: More Guns, Not Less, Would Prevent Shooting Massacres
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
By John Lott and Maxim Lott
Few tragedies make their victims feel more helpless than multiple-victim shootings.
Imagine the terror: Unable to escape, simply waiting for the killer.
With school starting, the April 16 attack at Virginia Tech that left 32 dead is still on many people’s minds. Some are looking for guarantees that such an attack won’t happen again.
But Virginia Tech’s just released report on how to stop future tragedies was pretty disappointing, and this coming week’s Virginia Governor’s task force report isn’t likely to be any better. The university proposes more counseling for mentally troubled students, internet based billboards to alert students of emergencies, putting both the police and fire departments into the same building to allow better coordination, more surveillance cameras, and locks that make it easier for students to get out of buildings.
Well, more cameras might help get campus police to the scene faster, but let’s hope that the next attacker doesn’t commit the attack where there are no cameras or that he doesn’t disable them first. Assuming that the doors to buildings are merely locked as they normally would be--and that the assailant has not blocked them or tied them shut with a chain-- easy to open locks could help.
If a current student is planning the next attack, gets identified as having mental problems and has treatment, and that the treatment is successful, more mental health resources could be helpful.
But one glaring omission remains: The report failed to ask whether there were any common features or similarities among the different multiple-victim public shooting tragedies. And what happens if these policies fail? Should there be some ultimate protection upon which the university can rely?
Of course, these horrors are hardly unique to the United States. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries-- including France, Germany and Switzerland-- have experienced multiple-victim shootings.
The worst, in Germany, resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators. Of course, since 1997 there have been multiple attacks in the U.S., with the 13 dead at Columbine.
Prior to Virginia Tech, the two previous most deadly shootings in the U.S. were the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas, which left 23 people dead, and the shooting at a California McDonald's in 1984, in which 21 people were killed.
All these attacks shared something in common: citizens were already banned from having guns in those areas. Indeed, every multiple-victim public shooting of any significant size in the United States has occurred in one of these gun-free zones.
The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws.
Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its gun-free zone policy and suspended students with concealed handgun permits who have tried to bring handguns onto school property, and it will continue to do so. Imagine what this means for a faculty member fired for bringing even a permitted concealed handgun on campus. It would be impossible for them to get another academic job at any other university. Similarly, a student who gets expelled for a firearms violation will find it virtually impossible to get admitted to another school.
But whether it is the suspensions and expulsions at universities, or even the three-year prison terms that can await those who take guns onto property of K-12 schools in most states, these penalties are completely meaningless for someone intent on killing and facing multiple life sentences or death penalties.
But citizens and police who pack heat do help, because they can stop a shooting while it is happening. Amazingly, opposition to guns on campuses is so extreme that some even oppose police being able to carry guns.
When, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, campus police at Brandeis University asked that they be armed to prevent similar tragedies, the president of the Brandeis Student Union even argued that, “the sense of community and the sense of safety would be disturbed very much by having guns on campus.”
The administration is now considering arming its officers but has not taken action. By Sept. 10, the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa will also decide whether to end an almost 30-year ban and allow campus police to again carry handguns.
Police with guns are certainly helpful, but there simply aren’t enough police to ensure that an officer will be at the scene when shooting starts. For example, this past spring at Virginia Tech, each officer on duty had to cover well over 250 acres.
Up until the early 1970s, Israel had to deal with the cold reality of terrorists who would take machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and Synagogues and open fire. That type of attack doesn’t occur any more. Why? Israelis realized that armed citizens could stop such an attacker before he did much damage.
About 15 percent of Israelis are now licensed to carry weapons, and determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombing.
Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect himself or herself increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed handgun, the probability that at least someone in the crowd will have a gun is very high.
There have been a number of attempted public attacks have been stopped by permit holders on streets, at universities, and public schools.
While right-to-carry laws-- now operating in 40 states -- do reduce violent crime generally, the effect is much larger for multiple-victim shootings. Normally about 2 to 6 percent of adults in any state have permits, and for most crimes that means some deterrence. But for a shooting in a public place where there might be dozens or hundreds of people, it will almost ensure that at least someone -- someone who is unknown to the attacker -- will be able to defend themselves and others.
People won't have to wait helplessly for the killer to get them.
Police are extremely important in deterring crime but, as this latest attack showed again, they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in America by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun.
Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so does the fact that victims can defend themselves.
Other countries wonder how millions of Americans can be allowed to legally carry concealed handguns. We must be crazy. Won't blood flow in the streets?
Many Americans also initially shared the same fears, but not any longer. The permit holders have proven to be extremely law-abiding. There is a reason no state that has allowed citizens to carry guns has reversed course.
Most people understand that guns deter criminals. Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends to harm you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying "This home is a gun-free zone"? Would it frighten criminals away?
Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. Two of his sons are attending public universities in Virginia. Maxim Lott is a college student in Virginia at the College of William & Mary.
Kyobanim
08-29-2007, 20:19
After the VT shootings I started bringing my 9 to work. I leave it in the car, out of site. I'll be damned if I'm going to rely on the 1 OPD officer sitting in the cafeteria to protect us.
If I get caught I get fired and prosecuted; that's life.
It's my understanding that there are efforts in Texas to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms on campus - and, that the Governor (Rick Perry) supports the idea.
I think it's a great idea!
incommin
08-30-2007, 14:57
The major LE motto is "serve and protect".. the problem with the motto is that LE are a reaction force. Usually the damage is done by the time the call comes in. This is something the Dems and liberal do not comprehend. I'm thankful that as a retired LE (come October 07) I will be able to carry most of the time and have a weapon near by for the few places I can't.
Jim
Since I live and park on campus in Richmond, as a grad student, I can't even legally bring my rifle up to the armorer to get it worked on and then put it somewhere till I go home again. Wonderful stuff.
But hey there are ~ 5 extremely obese :rolleyes: Richmond City Police sitting where they bring the inmates to the hospital to get care. Their response time would be GREAT!
incarcerated
02-20-2011, 23:01
http://www.aolnews.com/story/texas-poised-to-pass-bill-allowing-guns/1602976/
Texas poised to pass bill allowing guns on campus
Feb 20, 2011 - 13:08PM
AUSTIN, Texas -Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus, adding momentum to a national campaign to open this part of society to firearms.
More than half the members of the Texas House have signed on as co-authors of a measure directing universities to allow concealed handguns. The Senate passed a similar bill in 2009 and is expected to do so again. Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who sometimes packs a pistol when he jogs, has said he's in favor of the idea.
Texas has become a prime battleground for the issue because of its gun culture and its size, with 38 public universities and more than 500,000 students. It would become the second state, following Utah, to pass such a broad-based law. Colorado gives colleges the option and several have allowed handguns.
Supporters of the legislation argue that gun violence on campuses, such as the mass shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 and Northern Illinois in 2008, show that the best defense against a gunman is students who can shoot back.
"It's strictly a matter of self-defense," said state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio. "I don't ever want to see repeated on a Texas college campus what happened at Virginia Tech, where some deranged, suicidal madman goes into a building and is able to pick off totally defenseless kids like sitting ducks...."
mark46th
02-21-2011, 09:19
I love Texas. Any place that has drive through stores where you can buy beer and ammo is alright with me...
"It's strictly a matter of self-defense," said state Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio. "I don't ever want to see repeated on a Texas college campus what happened at Virginia Tech, where some deranged, suicidal madman goes into a building and is able to pick off totally defenseless kids like sitting ducks...."
Our nuts are smart enough to shoot from towers with rifles here so CCW students and faculty can't get to them. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
02-21-2011, 09:35
Our nuts are smart enough to shoot from towers with rifles here so CCW students and faculty can't get to them. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
And the reason real snipers now have to pass psychological testing, a psychological screening......
Most big police departments now have .50 sniper rifle to deal with these sort of issues. There's no place to hide when you're facing a .50 and a trained sniper...:D
Our nuts are smart enough to shoot from towers with rifles here so CCW students and faculty can't get to them. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
I seem to recall something about a shooting in a Mall. Some of it took place in a Restaurant. One of the people eating with her parents had a CCW permit but because the Mall did not allow weapons she kept it in her car. A Nut came in shot up the place and killed her parents.
Was that in Texas, Richard?
I seem to recall something about a shooting in a Mall. Some of it took place in a Restaurant. One of the people eating with her parents had a CCW permit but because the Mall did not allow weapons she kept it in her car. A Nut came in shot up the place and killed her parents.
Was that in Texas, Richard?
Texas is preparing to give college students and professors the right to carry guns on campus...
I thought the topic was allowing CCW on college campuses...
Richard :munchin
But isn't the greater issue really about whether we want areas - whether colleges or something else - that leave the law-abiding unarmed?
I recall my favorite college campus right after some dreadful shooting or other. The police were parked in the median at the entry and exit points. Countless vehicles passed by. Once parked, students and faculty strolled to the classrooms with large backpacks filled to the bursting point. Others had luggage on rollers. Somehow, I didn't see how the presence of our campus police officers made anyone more secure.
There is a further issue. I understand that public campuses are, in fact, open to the public. So anyone - anyone at all - can come on campus and enjoy the ambiance even if they are not a student, faculty, or staff. So this may increase the vulnerability of those usually on campus to those who might wish to cause problems.
I know there are problems. I understand there are deep and legitimate concerns. And yet, I find myself in support of the new law. MOO, YMMV.
I thought the topic was allowing CCW on college campuses...
Richard :munchin
Not too many students would use a rifle as their Concealed Carry Weapon. And I don't think the Texas Tower shooter was carring his as a Concealed Weapon.
I'm not up enough on the case to know how he got it up there.
But the general thrust of this thread is asking if we have to fear those than carry concealed within the local law.
The Reaper
02-21-2011, 10:50
Our nuts are smart enough to shoot from towers with rifles here so CCW students and faculty can't get to them. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Well, they could, just like armed citizens at Austin helped engage the threat and pin him down with their privately owned weapons, on campus.:munchin
TR
Well, they could, just like armed citizens at Austin helped engage the threat and pin him down with their privately owned weapons, on campus.:munchin
TR
This is Texas - brandishing a weapon around here to threaten someone is never a wise idea. ;)
Richard
The Reaper
02-21-2011, 11:14
This is Texas - brandishing a weapon around here to threaten someone is never a wise idea. ;)
Richard
Not a Texas lawyer, but here in NC, threatening or brandishing a firearm is illegal and is covered as part of the CCW instruction.
I suspect that the stats will show a lot more brandishing among those without a CCW than those with them. No CCW holder wants to lose their license, go to jail, or get shot for something minor like that. Those less inclined to be law-abiding probably think differently.
Have you attended a concealed carry class, Richard?
TR
Have you attended a concealed carry class, Richard?
My wife and I went through one when we were thinking of a pistol for her - her work pattern changed and we didn't think it necessary so neither of us carry. However, many do and the reason for my previous comment - it is not a joke around here and people recognize that.
Richard :munchin
I know it's an unusual premise, but I think every citizen who qualifies for CCW should get a license and carry whenever legal.
Texas_Shooter
02-21-2011, 11:33
I once asked a on campus police officer why she thought about CCW she said it was a bad idea. The reason being "how are the police supposed to differentiate between an armed assailant and a law abiding citizen?". Unfortunately there might be those few students that think they can single handily take down an armed gun man. If there are students running around campus with guns trying to take care of this gunman on there own then it clouds the vision of the police officers trying to stop an armed gunman. If they do allow CCW on campus then they need to include some more training in the classes that addresses those issues. Only pull that weapon out if you see the threat.
I once asked a on campus police officer why she thought about CCW she said it was a bad idea. The reason being "how are the police supposed to differentiate between an armed assailant and a law abiding citizen?". Unfortunately there might be those few students that think they can single handily take down an armed gun man. If there are students running around campus with guns trying to take care of this gunman on there own then it clouds the vision of the police officers trying to stop an armed gunman. If they do allow CCW on campus then they need to include some more training in the classes that addresses those issues. Only pull that weapon out if you see the threat.
Do you have CCW training?
Texas_Shooter
02-21-2011, 11:38
Yeah I know I'm speaking out of turn on that last post.
Do you have CCW training?
No.
Yeah I know I'm speaking out of turn on that last post.
No.
I'm almost 100 percent certain that in all CCW training, one of the first things the student is taught is to not display a weapon until warranted by a threat.
Colleges are just microcosms of towns. CCW makes just as much sense on a campus as it does anywhere, if the carriers adhere to standard.
CCW might easily have saved many lives lately; many more than would have been lost due to overanxious campus police.
Texas_Shooter
02-21-2011, 11:57
I'm almost 100 percent certain that in all CCW training, one of the first things the student is taught is to not display a weapon until warranted by a threat.
Colleges are just microcosms of towns. CCW makes just as much sense on a campus as it does anywhere, if the carriers adhere to standard.
CCW might easily have saved many lives lately; many more than would have been lost due to overanxious campus police.
You are right about that last part because a lot of those campus police are overanxious or they are just plain inept. If the law was to pass then it would have to be watched very carefully for signs of trouble.
The Reaper
02-21-2011, 12:00
You are right about that last part because a lot of those campus police are overanxious or they are just plain inept. If the law was to pass then it would have to be watched very carefully for signs of trouble.
You might want to keep your uninformed commentary and generalizations to yourself.
Are you done with that shovel yet?
TR
Texas_Shooter
02-21-2011, 12:04
No I have seen both overanxious and an inept police force at the schools I have gone to.
No I have seen both overanxious and an inept police force at the schools I have gone to.
If you don't stop posting for a while, TR may have some more schooling for you.
Texas_Shooter
02-21-2011, 12:07
Plus the thought of having armed students on campus would be a very strong deterrent to prevent further shootings.
No I have seen both overanxious and an inept police force at the schools I have gone to.
That's two.
"That's two" not in the way that it means I agree with you.
I'll let you figure it out.
ZonieDiver
02-21-2011, 12:11
Scooterdude, dear. Hush! Grown-ups are talking.
Texas_Shooter
02-21-2011, 12:13
Fine I'll read a little bit more
Team Sergeant
02-21-2011, 12:20
Fine I'll read a little bit more
How about you read a lot more before you re-engage this crowd.
Post again in this thread and you are gone.
Team Sergeant
CCW makes just as much sense on a campus as it does anywhere, if the carriers adhere to standard.A potential obstacle to your proposal is drinking among college students. A recent article in Newsweek, available here (http://education.newsweek.com/2010/12/01/tackling-binge-drinking-on-campus.print.html), provides a thumbnail of the issue. A .GOV website provides a statistical snapshot of behaviors linked to college-aged drinking here (http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx).
Until colleges and universities get a better handle on this issue, I don't know how their risk assessment departments will cotton to CCW, no matter how high the training standard.
Speaking from my own personal dealings with CCW's, both from the viewpoint of one dealing with CCW holders as well as assisting with the issuance of the CCW permit itself, I believe that at the beginning when several states began issuing them that hadn't previously done so, there were several concerns on the LE side. However, now that it has been several years later, I, personally, have found 99.9% of my concerns were unfounded.
I agree with Dusty in his previous post when he said that he felt these types of scenarios were addressed in CCW classes. It is my opinion, that the overwhelming majority of CCW holders that I have encountered were law-abiding citizens that were responsible carriers. In fact, I have not encountered, personally, any incidents whereby a CCW holder was in the wrong or abused their permit. I am sure it happens nationwide, but I would imagine the percentages of that are very low. It's interesting to me to know the number of CCW holders that don't actually carry their weapons, but wanted the permit in the event they felt they needed to. Many of them just keep them in their vehicles rather than on their person. The point is, IMO, that most of the people that apply for CCW permits are responsible gun owners.
Team Sergeant
02-21-2011, 12:30
Not a Texas lawyer, but here in NC, threatening or brandishing a firearm is illegal and is covered as part of the CCW instruction.
I suspect that the stats will show a lot more brandishing among those without a CCW than those with them. No CCW holder wants to lose their license, go to jail, or get shot for something minor like that. Those less inclined to be law-abiding probably think differently.
Have you attended a concealed carry class, Richard?
TR
Brandishing a firearm is illegal and is covered as part of the CCW instruction. (I was a certified CCW instructor in S.C.)
The best part (or worse part) of CCW training is learning the laws concerning CCW.
Concerning this thread, what's that quote;
An Armed society is a polite society.
Robert A. Heinlein
A potential obstacle to your proposal is drinking among college students. A recent article in Newsweek, available here (http://education.newsweek.com/2010/12/01/tackling-binge-drinking-on-campus.print.html), provides a thumbnail of the issue. A .GOV website provides a statistical snapshot of behaviors linked to college-aged drinking here (http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx).
Until colleges and universities get a better handle on this issue, I don't know how their risk assessment departments will cotton to CCW, no matter how high the training standard.
Good point, but CCW still projects a safer eventuality, Bro.
I don't see how it could ever boil down to hungover students v. corpses, to tell the truth. These events generally happen during the day while students are in classrooms, anyway (presumably sober).
Managing the alcohol is the responsibility of the CCW license holder.
Good point, but CCW still projects a safer eventuality, Bro.
I don't see how it could ever boil down to hungover students v. corpses, to tell the truth. These events generally happen during the day while students are in classrooms, anyway (presumably sober).
Managing the alcohol is the responsibility of the CCW license holder.
In addition, Sig, just adding to Dusty. I think in almost all states a person must be 21 to get a CCW permit.
I have it on very good authority, D2, that bing drinking is over the top for freshmen, slows somewhat by the second year and by the third year - for college students - most are considered social drinkers. Might be because they are 21 and the thrill is gone - and they have to get a job to pay for apartments. etc.
Her views on freshman in the dorm drinking habits were quite funny when she was in her second year and she is glad to be out in an apartment this thrid year.
The Florida licensing authority responsible for issuing and revoking concealed weapon/firearm licenses, maintains and shares data on its concealed weapon license applications, issuance, revocation, etc.,
The data spans the following dates: October, 1987 – January, 2011.
According to the data, since October, 1987, approximately 1,918,601 concealed weapon/firearm licenses have been duly issued.
The same data suggests that only 168 of the nearly 2 million licenses were revoked for use of firearm during commission of a crime.
That is, approximately 0.00875638 % of all licensed concealed weapon holders in Florida from October, 1987 - January, 2011, have committed a crime with a firearm (resulting in revocation of said license).
Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - January 31, 2011
Licenses Issued: 1,918,601
Licenses Revoked (crime after issuance – firearm utilized) : 168
The Florida licensing authority responsible for issuing and revoking concealed weapon/firearm licenses, maintains and shares data on its concealed weapon license applications, issuance, revocation, etc.,
The data spans the following dates: October, 1987 – January, 2011.
According to the data, since October, 1987, approximately 1,918,601 concealed weapon/firearm licenses have been duly issued.
The same data suggests that only 168 of the nearly 2 million licenses were revoked for use of firearm during commission of a crime.
That is, approximately 0.00875638 % of all licensed concealed weapon holders in Florida from October, 1987 - January, 2011, have committed a crime with a firearm (resulting in revocation of said license).
Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - January 31, 2011
Licenses Issued: 1,918,601
Licenses Revoked (crime after issuance – firearm utilized) : 168
Well, who's gonna be dumb enough to break the law down there, with Horatio Cain snoopin' around?
greenberetTFS
02-21-2011, 14:14
The Florida licensing authority responsible for issuing and revoking concealed weapon/firearm licenses, maintains and shares data on its concealed weapon license applications, issuance, revocation, etc.,
The data spans the following dates: October, 1987 – January, 2011.
According to the data, since October, 1987, approximately 1,918,601 concealed weapon/firearm licenses have been duly issued.
The same data suggests that only 168 of the nearly 2 million licenses were revoked for use of firearm during commission of a crime.
That is, approximately 0.00875638 % of all licensed concealed weapon holders in Florida from October, 1987 - January, 2011, have committed a crime with a firearm (resulting in revocation of said license).
Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report
October 1, 1987 - January 31, 2011
Licenses Issued: 1,918,601
Licenses Revoked (crime after issuance – firearm utilized) : 168
Very interesting figures,almost 2 million concealed weapon holders in that period and it's amazing the low revocations that occurred........;) Wonder if it's the same in other states?......... ;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Well, who's gonna be dumb enough to break the law down there, with Horatio Cain snoopin' around?
Yup, the land of the hangin' chad is not exactly the gunshine state that the media likes to portray.
Probably won't see those numbers published in the New York Times or Boston Globe...or even the vaunted Columbia Spectator. ;)
Probably won't see those numbers published in the New York Times or [the] Boston Globe...or even the vaunted [the] Columbia Spectator. ;)Why should privately owned newspapers be expected to provide data and/or counter arguments that go against their editorial preferences?
Why should privately owned newspapers be expected to provide data and/or counter arguments that go against their editorial preferences?
Intellectual honesty?
cszakolczai
02-21-2011, 14:50
Why should privately owned newspapers be expected to provide data and/or counter arguments that go against their editorial preferences?
We can always second guess what someone says to us and yes, they obviously do have a slight bias toward one direction. :)
Having said this, being a current college student and one who attends a school located in a fairly major city, I would not discredit our police, or say they are not keeping "us" safe here. I would however say that the way my personal campus is set up, the Police are not able to control 5 campuses very easily. Almost weekly a student here is either mugged, attacked, kidnapped (always released) or hurt in another fashion by crime spill over from the surrounding city. In tougher economic times, I can say the desperation for the people willing to commit a crime against the student body increases. There are many students who do not drink and who would be a great candidate to carry concealed. I'm sure the criminal who entered one of our dorms last month and sexually harrassed one of our students would have thought twice if he knew someone may be carrying concealed.
I totally agree with any student or faculty member entering into a very strict class which is directed by the Police on campus. The police and the CCW holder can then understand the ways in which they can work as one. Maybe even making the person looking to carry concealed enter into another 3 or 4 credit class may do the trick in weeding out most college kids looking to just play "cop"
Intellectual honesty?Do attorneys stand before the bar and argue opposing viewpoints?
Do consultants pass on RFPs because they know a more qualified consultancy is going to submit a proposal?
Very interesting figures,almost 2 million concealed weapon holders in that period and it's amazing the low revocations that occurred........;) Wonder if it's the same in other states?.........
It is amazing. The numbers clearly suggest that concealed firearm license holders here in Florida are basically law abiding folks. Why should Florida be markedly different from other states?
I suspect that most states are less forthcoming with their licensing data - could it be because the data might support a similar conclusion - it sure would put a rather big hole in the anti-gun folks arguments against shall issue laws.
In Florida, there were additional revocations (approx. 6,000 total) during the periods involved but only 168 reportedly involved a firearm. To read most of the media - those nearly 2 million license holders are making the streets unsafe with their guns. According to the published numbers, that does not appear to be the case. Some folks obviously committed crimes and lost their license (DUI, whatever, etc.) but a firearm was not involved - and the license was revoked - still a relatively low number given the nearly 2 million licenses issued.
All in all, duly licensed concealed carry folks in Florida don't appear to be disproportionately involved in activities (i.e., crimes) that endanger others.
This is good news.
I read TR's original post and it got me thinking. As a USG employee, I've received training in:
CPR - preserve life until medics arrive
fire extinguisher use - attempt to knock down SMALL fire until FF's arrive
chem/bio mask use - done & clear mask then evac
I've even had civilian version of CLS (stabilize wounded until medics arrive). Yet, I have never had any type of "active shooter" training (disclaimer: I have had weapons training due to trips to warzones but it's not USG wide training). Our facilities have police or security guards but don't high schools, colleges, military bases, etc have similar armed security elements? I guess the duck and cover sums it up?
I am not a Postal Service employee. I wonder if that has anything to do with it? :p
Even if I had a CCW, I would not be LEGALLY allowed to enter a Federal facility with the weapon in my glove box. I've even had to explain why I "feel the need" to carry a small CRKT!
Do attorneys stand before the bar and argue opposing viewpoints?
Do consultants pass on RFPs because they know a more qualified consultancy is going to submit a proposal?
Sigaba,
No snark, your questions sound like a first year law school student - are you attending law school?
Let me ask this, are newspapers now duly sworn members of the bar - ethically charged with zealously representing their client? I didn't think so. Bad comparison.
Moreover, attorneys often concede facts in various situations and practices. Suffice to say, the members of the bar that I prefer to deal with, are forthcoming with facts either in negotiation or compelled by discovery.
You appear to be way out of your element with respect to the actual practice of law and I do not have time (nor do I have the inclination) to open school on how to practice.
Regarding consultants passing on RFP's - I have never met one who didn't think his or her firm was the very best firm for the job - of course the firms that I have experience with are among some of the largest in the world, so naturally, they will always submit an RFP if they are interested in the business. YMMV.
Now, back to the newspapers - I really do not think that asking for a little intellectual honesty from a newspaper is a great deal to ask.
After all, among other things, newspapers are engaged in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas to the public.
A simple definition of intellectual honesty could reasonably be stated as: the honest acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas.
I realize that we differ on many things - including, apparently, intellectual honesty - but - I'd like to see a newspaper report the facts and let the readers decided.
If firearms and the duly licensed carriers of firearms are indeed the danger that the newspapers so often make these folks out to be - please include the facts and let the readers decide. Again, YMMV.
Sacamuelas
02-21-2011, 17:00
.
Dozer523
02-21-2011, 17:19
The Florida licensing authority . . . The discussion is about Texas.
But, I'm just wondering what's your point?
And what does your point have to do with statistics about one state have to do with the publishing decisions of private newspapers from non-Florida states?
And finally, are you an attorney? are you a law professor?I thought the topic was allowing CCW on college campuses...Richard :munchin
Awwww our little discussion is all grown up and gone to college. I don't like guns on elementry campuses I don't like them on college campuses for the same reasons. And that IS all I'm saying.
Entire post.Tonyz--
You present a sustainable definition of "intellectual honesty." Do you apply the same standard to yourself or just to journalists?
A quick use of Google provides answers to your question about available data on CCW <<LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/02appeal.html)>>, <<LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/us/06guns.html?_r=1)>>.
A brief consideration of the data you posted about Floridians being "law abiding folks" might have tempered you to qualify that statement significantly <<LINK (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/ranks/rank21.html)>>, <<LINK (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/florida-ranks-second-in-illegal-guns-traced-to-944089.html)>>, <<LINK (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/ATF_2006/FL-2006.pdf)>>.
A cursory glance at my profile answers your question that I am not a law student but a bean counter.
As for you holding the standards of lawyers as superior to members of the fourth estate, your professional pride testifies to your commitment to what you do. Yet difference between pride and hubris is razor thin. (Right now, the ears of Woodrow Wilson's ghost are burning.) I think it is a mistake to conclude that dedicated members of any profession take their craft any less seriously than you take yours.
Turning to your criticism of how news outlets cover the issue of CCW and gun control more generally, I think you're engaged in a game of "gotcha"/straw man-jousting. This game is a lot of fun when talking to people who share similar views. But when it comes to discussing the matter with those who do not agree but whose support we'll ultimately need, this approach may be counterproductive.
The NYT--and other news outlets--make quite clear their views on a wide range of public policy issues. So what do we do? As citizens, we have the choice to agree, to disagree, to use the search button, to communicate with reporters, book reviewers, editors, and fellow readers, and demonstrate an intellectually honest approach to discourse. Or we can fold our arms and decry the fact that these outlets have the temerity not to report the news we see fit to print. (Well, I do both.:p)
A change of topic. Regarding your comment[O]f course the firms that I have experience with are among some of the largest in the world so naturally, they will always submit an RFP if they are interested in the business. FWIW, the powers that be at what was arguably the most prestigious consultancy of its type on the planet had that same approach to RFPs. Sadly, the chirped warnings of some of the worker bees, including a disgruntled--but not bitter--naval historian who thought the word "strategy" shouldn't be thrown around so casually went ignored. Then the economy tanked and the hallways ran with blood.*
_______________________________________________
*Okay, okay, okay. I AM BITTER. The old office was a block away from a Starbucks and a stone's throw away from the Richard J. Riordan Central Library. And that library has its own coffee house and is also across the street from another Starbucks. Now? I get to see on a daily basis the rise of Chinese Communist maritime power, the impact of the Mexico drug wars on tourism, and union workers do their thing (what ever that is).
The discussion is about Texas.
But, I'm just wondering what's your point?
And what does your point have to do with statistics about one state have to do with the publishing decisions of private newspapers from non-Florida states?
And finally, are you an attorney? are you a law professor?
Awwww our little discussion is all grown up and gone to college. I don't like guns on elementry campuses I don't like them on college campuses for the same reasons. And that IS all I'm saying.
I read the discussion to be about concealed carry on campus - it happens to be Texas - read posts #11 and #12 that discuss CCW on college campus and beyond. Read posts #33 and #34 which allude to concealed carry - generally - and that an armed society is a polite society - I posted - some facts - on concealed carry that I am familiar with - tending to support those generally positive comments.
I did not realize that we had a geographic limitation to this discussion - since the proposed Texas statute might benefit from some additional facts (collected over a relatively long term basis) about concealed carry holders. Moreover, if this passes in Texas it may be proposed in other jurisdictions and facts about concealed carriers are important to have at hand.
These type of supporting numbers are difficult to come by and are often disregarded by the anti-gun crowd.
IME, newspaper reporters are notoriously anti-gun and have not, to my knowledge, published these types of facts - if you have information to the contrary I am always interested in reading such pieces.
I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last - night but I am an attorney in good standing in mulitple jurisdictions. I have spent time at the front of various classrooms - including law school - business school and graduate accounting schools. That is largely irrelevant - but you asked.
I posted publicly available statistics that tend to support the contention that the majority on concealed weapons/firearms holders in the state of Florida are law abiding citizens. Is Texas really so different? If I had been familiar with similar Texas statistics - I'd have posted them.
I fully realized that these statistics are rarely published and may run afoul of the anti-gun / anti concealed carry crowd. IMO, that is why positive statistics collected over a long period of time are useful.
IME, the anti-gun/ anti-concealed carry crowd will use every method and distraction possible to both distract and discredit both the message and the messenger - that is why I simply shared some facts pertinent to concealed carry holders - collected over a long period of time. Yes, the data was from Florida but the conclusions that can be drawn from the data can impact well beyond Florida and possibly Texas.
Those interested in Texas statistics can view annual reorts HERE (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm). Numbers are annual, not aggregated.
The results seem similar to those from Florida. This seems to support the premise that permit holders will not represent an increase in risk to others.
More Texas data HERE. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324)
In addition, the above cites a study that shows decreases in crime correlated with permission to carry.
Post #50.
IME, the standards for an attorney or a journalist may not be superior - just different - with very different repercussions. And law school, you could have been attending evenings - what do I know.
I hear you on the razor thin line - your call.
IMO, the newspaper articles that you cite both discuss a very different aspect of concealed carry - the first alludes to disclosing the names of concealed carry holders and the second largely discusses California's database on people who should not have guns. If your point is that there exist databases which discuss guns - ok - but rare is the length of study in Florida and rare is the publication of favorable information on concealed carry. I do suspect some media bias - but maybe that's just me.
In contrast, the Florida data that I shared supports the notion that the vast majority of concealed carry folks here are law abiding - and very few lawful carriers use guns in criminal activities.
I know this information is vastly different than both articles that you cited - but those are the facts in Florida - which like Texas - is often considered a bellwether state for a variety of reasons.
Additionally, it is not unusual for policy makers to extrapolate from one state to another - in fact the author of one of your cited articles does so.
Your point on what should we as citizens do w/r/t our news outlets is well taken - I posted some favorable statistics on concealed carry ownership in Florida and sat back and watched the show. Moreover, I have had discussions with reporters on this very matter (with both the Florida data and another state's data - which illustrate how violent crime using a firearm actually increased in that state - at the very time when concealed carry licenses and firearm dealer licenses plummeted). He did not seem to like these facts - said this was the first time he had ever heard them - certainly didn't publish them. I suspect that they are in a circular file of a certain major newspaper.
Finally, I hear you on the consulting firm RFP's - seems your experience was similar to mine - there is nothing that they will refuse to submit an RFP on - if the powers that be want the project - they will hire the talent needed - or not. ;)
The Reaper
02-21-2011, 19:49
Why should privately owned newspapers be expected to provide data and/or counter arguments that go against their editorial preferences?
Because they are supposed to report the facts as news, and keep the editorializing on the Op-Ed pages.
TR
Excerpt from Texas info:
"In the early 1990s, Texas' serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. For example, during the 1990s Texas' murder rate dropped 52 percent compared to 33 percent nationally, and the rape rate fell by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. In light of Lott's research, it is likely that Texas' concealed carry law has contributed to the declining crime rates."
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
And law school, you could have been attending evenings - what do I know. To paraphrase Jack Crabb* Sure, I'm a historian. Didn't you hear me say, "God bless Peter Paret. God bless Lynn Hunt."? I mean, now what kind of law student would say a fool thing like that?
______________________________
* Source is here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065988/quotes).
dr. mabuse
02-21-2011, 21:32
*
Everytime I see a new post on this thread, I want to move more. Either to Texas where their laws (among many other things) are awesome, or to West Virginia... where nobody cares ;-).
As a college student, formerly living on campus at an upscale public university, I wish that students were allowed to carry. There were occasional violent crimes on campus, usually perpetrated by out-of-towners who came to our little college town looking for trouble. If there had been any incidents during the day, the campus would have been in a serious mess. We had a very well trained and equipped police force, but the campus is very spread out, with some classes over 3/4 mile apart. Most classrooms in the historic buildings had large fogged glass doors. I'm sure my campus wasn't the only one like this - there is no way to barricade a room that has a thin glass door.
My campus did have a program for people with firearms. They could store them in the campus police's evidence vault. The problem was if you took it out for a weekend of hunting, you couldn't put it back in until Monday. That meant it had to stay somewhere for that extra night. Firearm policy is one of the main reasons I elected to stay off campus as soon as I could.
The CCW stats speak for themselves. Opening the door for students to practice their right to bear arms would be a great move. Kudos to TX on considering the bill, and I hope it passes.
-out
dr. mabuse
02-21-2011, 22:06
*
These threads drive me nuts. In high school, in Oklahoma, I drove a frigging VW Bug to school with a rifle in a rack mounted in front of the back window. When I got my first car, a Mustang, I almost put one in it. Decided to carry it in the trunk instead. May have looked cool, though. ;)
What's happened to this country (?)
Pat
What's happened to this country (?) Pat
When I visited my dad out in Burbank about six years ago, he tried to give me an M1A1 Carbine, which he hid "in order to surprise me", inside of my stow-away luggage.
BOY WAS I SURPRISED! :eek:
After he explained to the TSA agent what he did, while I stood there with four TSA agents about to pounce, he asked the same question....jd
cszakolczai
02-21-2011, 23:13
When I visited my dad out in Burbank about six years ago, he tried to give me an M1A1 Carbine, which he hid "in order to surprise me", inside of my stow-away luggage.
BOY WAS I SURPRISED! :eek:
After he explained to the TSA agent what he did, while I stood there with four TSA agents about to pounce, he asked the same question....jd
hahaha, and I thought I was going to get jumped when they pulled out my nail clipper! I think you win.
Lott's OpEd
Arms and the Student
http://thedartmouth.com/2011/02/22/opinion/guns
"A few hundred yards from where I’m writing this column, just across the river in Vermont, 16-year-olds are allowed to purchase and carry a loaded handgun without needing anyone’s permission. Here in New Hampshire, an 18-year-old can openly carry a pistol without a concealed carry permit. Dartmouth’s campus, with its strict ban on privately-owned handguns, stands out amidst these “wild” lands of gun-toting teenagers..........................."
GratefulCitizen
02-22-2011, 12:53
Correlation. A correlation vs causation dilemma perhaps.
Does having CHL's reduce crime? As far as homicides go, perhaps a better statistic is what percentage of homicide victims were CHL holders.
IIRC, in the DFW area, in a ~30 mile radius circle from our school, there are ~ 500 homicides/year. AFAIK, we have had less than 10 CHL holder homicides in the whole state since September 1995 when CHL became available.
Texans with CHL's also appear to be unusually well behaved overall when carrying guns.
What will happen on campus if the law is passed, I don't really know, nor does anyone else until tomorrow is given unto yesterday. Speculation is there will be less food/money/girlfriend/boyfriend thefts in the dorms. :)
FWIW, the most current ( 2009 ) Texas statistics per DPS are here:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf
Texas CHL holder percentage of total convictions: 0.1541 %, down from .3792 % ten years ago.
Time will tell.
This is an area where statistics can be misleading.
If this line of reasoning is to be used, the number of convictions of CHL holders should be compared to the number of CHL holders.
That rate can then be compared to: (convictions of non-CHL holders)/(number of non-CHL holders).
Regardless of how those numbers turn out, it doesn't mean anything statistically significant can be inferred.
Effects can have many causes; this is why correlations don't necessarily mean much.
Statistics are much better at ruling out the possibility of a relationship than confirming one.
These are the wrong questions anyway.
The laws are either for society as a whole, or for protection of the individual.
The right questions are these:
How often are CHL holders the victims of crimes compared to the number of CHL holders.
How often are non-CHL holders the victims of crimes compared to the number of non-CHL holders.
Don't even engage in the debate of how often CHL holders commit crimes.
Who cares.
The only debate should be as to how often CHL holders are the victims of crimes.
GratefulCitizen
02-22-2011, 13:07
While right-to-carry laws-- now operating in 40 states -- do reduce violent crime generally, the effect is much larger for multiple-victim shootings. Normally about 2 to 6 percent of adults in any state have permits, and for most crimes that means some deterrence. But for a shooting in a public place where there might be dozens or hundreds of people, it will almost ensure that at least someone -- someone who is unknown to the attacker -- will be able to defend themselves and others.
Because of how probability works, a little goes a a long way with carry rates.
FWIW here are some calculations:
Assuming an actual carry rate of 2%
-A random group of 100 people: 86% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
-A random group of 50 people: 63% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
-A random group of 35 people: 50% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
Assuming an actual carry rate of 3%
-A random group of 100 people: 95% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
-A random group of 50 people: 78% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
-A random group of 25 people: 53% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
Assuming an actual carry rate of 4%
-A random group of 100 people: 98% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
-A random group of 50 people: 87% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
-A random group of 20 people: 55% chance that at least 1 person will be carrying.
dr. mabuse
02-22-2011, 18:03
*
The Reaper
02-22-2011, 19:14
One thing is certain.
The slaughter and "blood will run in the streets" predicted by the anti-gunners if "shall issue" concealed carry legislation passed, has most definitely not occurred. They were wrong (and their quotes are still out there), but they will not admit it.
And you guys stop quibbling. I think most of us agree on more than we disagree.
TR
ZonieDiver
02-22-2011, 19:56
hahaha, and I thought I was going to get jumped when they pulled out my nail clipper! I think you win.
They took my favorite nail scissors, which I forgot were in my shaving kit, yet allowed the woman who sat next to me to have two 14" inch knitting needles. One could do a hell of a lot more damage with those!
What HAS happened to this country?????
dr. mabuse
02-22-2011, 20:06
*
One thing is certain.
The slaughter and "blood will run in the streets" predicted by the anti-gunners if "shall issue" concealed carry legislation passed, has most definitely not occurred. They were wrong (and their quotes are still out there), but they will not admit it.
Great points – and I suspect that libs also fear that if more people wake up (i.e., like seeing these type of favorable facts) and start asking themselves - if the libs were wrong about this - why should we give a great deal of weight to what they (and more importantly their political leaders) say about: border security, domestic energy exploration, legitimate profiling, gay marriage, the threat of radical Islam, public union electioneering, tax policy, etc., etc., etc., maybe we should question a bit more?
After all, the libs camps are filled with many smooth talkers - maybe they need some push-back - push-back that some might consider long over due.
GratefulCitizen
02-23-2011, 14:04
Are you o.k.? What's going on here? Did you actually study the link? :confused: My first sentence was a questioning response to nmap's link. Nothing more. This was for FYI only.
If I've misread your rant, I'll gladly apologize later.
For people debating against guns on campus or if they're undecided, it is important to paint an accurate picture of the relative stability of CHL holders vs non-CHL's, Right? Data dumping volumes of statistics doesn't impress many nowadays ( nor anyone in my chosen fields ), nor does it win hearts and minds effectively. I do know about that first hand, many, many thousands of times.
The people at the Attorney General's Office of the State of Texas and DPS legal counsel and every LEO I've ever discussed this with think these numbers are important and telling in the big picture, as presented. What in the hell do they know anyway.
Let's go blow by blow, if we must.
Whoa! CEASE FIRE!!! FRIENDLY!!!
Guess I should've taken time to memorize the running password.
My apologies and sorry about the confusion.
My post was poorly written bunch of rambling which meandered between technical and philosophical ideas.
I was attempting to agree, and add some technical observations.
The results demonstrate a failure on my part.
(attempted)CLARIFICATION:
On philosophical grounds, I believe it is unwise to cede the center of debate.
That's all. (It seems we're in a agreement there)
On technical grounds:
The implied hypothesis of these statistics appears to be that CHL holders are less likely to commit crimes.
That may well be true, but cannot be inferred from the data given. (many issues here, beyond the scope of this thread or interest of readers)
Even assuming that something meaningful can be inferred from the data, there is an error in conditional probability.
Generally speaking, it's a base rate fallacy.
The error happens all the time and nobody is immune.
-It pops up in the legal profession enough to be called the "Prosecutor's Fallacy".
-It pops up in the medical profession as the "false-positive paradox".
-It fooled nearly 1000 PhD's (who wrote in and complained) in the "Monty Hall" problem posed by Marilyn vos Savant in 1990.
In the case of the data provided by the State of Texas:
The number of crimes committed by CHL holders is divided by the total number of crimes comitted.
This is a base rate fallacy.***
The number of crimes committed by CHL holders should be divided by the total number of CHL holders.
The number of crimes committed by non-CHL holders should be divided by the total number of non-CHL holders.
(Same logic applies with victims of crimes)
Why this matters in a political context:
-Some gun control person will figure this out, make it public, and undermine the political effectiveness of the data.
-If the percentage of Texas residents who have CHLs increases, the numbers being used will tend to increase as well (getting "worse").
Neither of these outcomes serves the cause of freedom.
Various errors like this pop up all the time, and I usually just let it go.
This one is important because of the potential political consequences.
***Analogy
Suppose there is data on the number of crimes commited in Texas by men over 7' tall.
As a percentage of all crimes committed, those committed by men over 7' will be quite low.
This is not necessarily because men over 7' are less likely to commit crimes.
It is because men over 7' tall are rare.
Same logic applies to CHL holders, as they are a small percentage of the population.
dr. mabuse
02-23-2011, 20:11
*
Lott's OpEd
Arms and the Student
http://thedartmouth.com/2011/02/22/opinion/guns
"A few hundred yards from where I’m writing this column, just across the river in Vermont, 16-year-olds are allowed to purchase and carry a loaded handgun without needing anyone’s permission. Here in New Hampshire, an 18-year-old can openly carry a pistol without a concealed carry permit. Dartmouth’s campus, with its strict ban on privately-owned handguns, stands out amidst these “wild” lands of gun-toting teenagers..........................."
Following up on interesting post above - IMO, this thread remains topical as reportedly nine states - Arizona, Florida Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas are currently considering bills that would allow campus carry in some form or another.
Utah already allows it.
FWIW, a link to an interesting article is provided below - the author argues in favor of campus carry - I will leave it to others to dredge up material from the Brady Center, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Rachel Maddow - for what they are worth.
Moreover, this article contains data from various states on the relative safety of duly licensed concealed weapons carriers - if for nothing more - this data may make the article worth the read - and may prove enlightening for some.
Excerpts:
“Most states issue permits to carry a concealed handgun for lawful protection to an applicant who is over twenty-one years of age, and who passes a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. These permits allow the person to carry a concealed defensive handgun almost everywhere in the state. Should professors, school teachers, or adult college and graduate students who have such permits be allowed to carry firearms on campus”?
“In the last two years, many state legislatures have debated this topic. School boards, regents, and administrators are likewise faced with decisions about whether to change campus firearms policies. This Article is the first to provide a thorough analysis of the empirical evidence and policy arguments regarding licensed campus carry. Whether a reader agrees or disagrees with the Article’s policy recommendations, the Article can lay the foundation for a better-informed debate, and a more realistic analysis of the issue.”
“This Article does not argue for or against these laws, but takes them as a given. Rather, the Article focuses on a particular question: Once society has concluded that it is not harmful and may be beneficial for some people to be licensed to carry handguns for protection, does it make sense to carve out educational institutions as special “no-carry” zones, or is such a policy harmful? The argument is most relevant in the forty “Shall Issue” states, where public policy has already determined that the vast majority of adults should be authorized to carry almost everywhere in public—provided that they pass a safety class and a fingerprint-based background check. Because this Article focuses on educational institutions, it is important to note that in the large majority of “Shall Issue” states the minimum age for being able to apply for a permit is twenty-one. There are six “Shall Issue” states in which the minimum age is eighteen.22”
“Critics of the Gun-Free School Zone Act (“GFSZA”) point out that before the 1990 law, there had been only seven shootings at American schools in the previous 214-year history of the United States. In the seventeen years following the adoption of the GFSZA, there were seventy-eight such incidents.10”
Pretend Gun-Free School Zones:
A Deadly Legal Fiction
DAVID B. KOPEL
Connecticut Law Review
Volume 42
December 2009
Number 2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30546045/Pretend-Gun-Free-School-Zones-A-Deadly-Legal-Fiction
or here - pg 161/384 in pdf version or law review pg 517:
http://www.connecticutlawreview.org/documents/Volume42-Issue2.pdf
There was a joke posted some time ago in the Comedy Section about how if back in the 1960s a student took their rifle into their highschool to show the teacher or principal, they'd show them theirs. Just try that today!
Back when I was in high school here in Texas (1986 ish) the R.O.T.C. actually had live weapons and ammo (.22) on school grounds, and the school an indoor shooting range. Every year around Thanksgiving R.O.T.C. would host a turkey shoot for a small entry fee. Though I was never part of R.O.T.C., I always entered; never took home the turkey.
Not sure what has become of the weapons, or the range at this point. I think I'll give them a call tomorrow and ask about it just to satisfy my own curiosity.
.......“Critics of the Gun-Free School Zone Act (“GFSZA”) point out that before the 1990 law, there had been only seven shootings at American schools in the previous 214-year history of the United States.............
Ya, been a while since anybody dynamited a school. Guess everybody forgot about that one.
Dynamite has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion but it goes to show the worst horror you can think of - something people will never forget - well, they do forget.
38 kids
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster