School Shootings

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by 1000101

Some people are just so damn hostile....

Also the more guns around the bigger the accessibility and appeal to kids (In this instance anyway).

Fair enough, just note i was not calling you a retard. Just those mislead ideas. It's such a close minded parent copout

Originally Posted by 1000101

it's definitely not retarded. I mean I doubt a retarded person could even think of that....

If you set them up, then I'm going knock them down.
Dude I'm tying so hard to be nice to you. Quit giving me free ammo.

Originally Posted by jrly

So getting more people to own guns is the solution to gun violence.

To your first part, thats is what I'm telling you. I wouldn't try breaking into a rednecks house for a gun though. That next day might not be on your calender.

I will give and say it might not be The Solution. But it has worked in every community that firearms where increased in to law abidding people.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by jrly

So getting more people to own guns is the solution to gun violence.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly almost the same results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee.

FerretBone was not advocating handing out guns to everyone, his point was that only law-abiding and responsible people qualify for the right to carry a firearm on their person, as born out by the statistics. Those people with a legal right to carry almost never commit crimes (gun related or otherwise.) It's not a question of how many guns are in the community, it's a question of who has them. A teacher or school security guard would have to go through a number of background checks, psych evaluations etc. before being allowed to carry a firearm. Probably more so than the average cop.

A disgruntled student with cash and imagination would probably be able to obtain a firearm if sufficiently determined, regardless of gun laws. If they come to school armed, the best chance of stopping them is with another firearm. Unless any of you peace-lovers want to volunteer as human shields.

Reality is, school shootings will continue to happen, just like any other violent crime. Claiming that armed teachers/security would encourage this is like claiming that armed cops encourage people to commit murder.

[CyberWar]

Interestingly, school shootings is a phenomenon characteristic to the developed world. I have never heard of such incidents in post-Soviet countries or the Arab world. In my place, for example, it can get quite rough at schools from time to time, but so far, the kids have resolved their differences with fists and feet. While there have been two or three half-assed attempts to weaponized violence at schools, the perpetrators were armed only with knives and were later found to be under influence of drugs and/or alcohol, which may explain the lack of deaths or serious injuries. The few cases of murder by peers took place outside school and were targeted against single individuals by groups rather then otherwise.

While we have quite stringent gun control laws, I would not say it is hard to obtain a black-market firearm in Latvia, and even less so in places like Russia or Ukraine. So that certainly does not explain the absence of lethal school violence.

Neither can this be explained by some retarded redneck cowboy reenacting his favourite videogame and testing his new AR-15, classmates and teachers starring as hostile soldiers/aliens/zombies. The perpetrators are generally intelligent, so inability to comprehend the consequences of their actions is not a good explanation either.

Social status is also a matter to question - the shooters were typically from average middle-class families with no history of domestic abuse or anything, so a "terrible childhood", this age-old and most sloppy excuse, is not an explanation.

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority (I dare to say 98%) of the shooters were males.

My guess is that the very culture of the Western society is what causes some unstable people to flip out. The stereotypical Western male must be tough, always defiant of dangers, loyal to his own ideals - the ideal male cultivated in mass media allows no room for weakness, and what's more, this ideal is further perverted to the ideal man being immensely successful with women (typically in shallow, purely sexual manner), able and very willing to resolve his differences with force (usually without using other means of argument first), physically well-developed and with little to no emotion. Just take a look at cult characters like James Bond or Rambo, and you have the basic picture.

Obviously, very few if any men can actually stand up to the ideal presented to them by the media and subconsciously expected from them by the society and even themselves. While most people consciously recognize the fiction behind it and the futility of pursuing this pseudo-ideal and happily cope with their current existence, nowhere in the world do men suffer from such bouts of depression as in the West. If the endless propaganda of the unattainable can subconsciously break even a healthy man, imagine what it can do to a less-than-stable person. So I guess that it is a perverted desire to be like the stereotypical male that drives some on killing sprees - if they had not lived like the ideal men, then they could at least die like them, tough and defiant, avenging real and perceived slights like is supposedly expected from them.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

was not advocating handing out guns to everyone, his point was that only law-abiding and responsible people qualify for the right to carry a firearm on their person, as born out by the statistics. Those people with a legal right to carry almost never commit crimes (gun related or otherwise.) It's not a question of how many guns are in the community, it's a question of who has them. A teacher or school security guard would have to go through a number of background checks, psych evaluations etc. before being allowed to carry a firearm. Probably more so than the average cop.

A disgruntled student with cash and imagination would probably be able to obtain a firearm if sufficiently determined, regardless of gun laws. If they come to school armed, the best chance of stopping them is with another firearm. Unless any of you peace-lovers want to volunteer as human shields.

Reality is, school shootings will continue to happen, just like any other violent crime. Claiming that armed teachers/security would encourage this is like claiming that armed cops encourage people to commit murder.

Good post Steve,

The only people following the laws in a school zone are law abiding adults. The rest were hearing about in the news.


In order for an adult to carry a handgun under a CCW, CHL, or CPL they would have to go through at least the steps bellow. Most states require 2 finger print sets and 2 photos, one for the state and one for feds.

Handgun Carry Permit Qualifications and Requirements:

Be a resident of the State

Be at least twenty-one (21) years of age

No convictions of any felony offense punishable for a term exceeding 1 year

Shall not currently be under indictment for any criminal offense

Shall not be currently the subject of any order of protection

Shall not be a fugitive from justice

Shall not be an unlawful user of or addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance

Shall not have been adjudicated as mental defective; has not been committed to or hospitalized in a mental institution; has not had a court appoint a conservator for the applicant by reason of a mental defect; has not been judicially determined to be disabled by reason of a mental illness, development disability or other mental incapacity; Shall not be an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;

Shall not have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or other than honorable discharge Chapter

Having been a citizen of the United States, applicants shall not have renounced their citizenship

Shall not have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Shall not have been convicted of the offense of stalking;

[Ace Razor]

I read a novel a few months back called Nineteen Minutesin which a teenager killed some kids at his school after being bullied all his life. Unlike most random shootings, he planted a pipebomb in a car as a distraction and was reasonalbly well equiped (two pistols and a sawn off shotgun). He had a hitlist of targets but ended up just shooting randomly. He is arrested and eventyually commits suicide. Quite an interesting bok actually, you should read it.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Interestingly, school shootings is a phenomenon characteristic to the developed world. I have never heard of such incidents in post-Soviet countries or the Arab world...
...While we have quite stringent gun control laws, I would not say it is hard to obtain a black-market firearm in Latvia, and even less so in places like Russia or Ukraine. So that certainly does not explain the absence of lethal school violence.

That's very interesting. No school shootings in Eastern Europe? Must be a cultural thing.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

Interestingly, the overwhelming majority (I dare to say 98%) of the shooters were males.

Most violent crime, indeed, most crime period, is committed by males.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

My guess is that the very culture of the Western society is what causes some unstable people to flip out. The stereotypical Western male must be tough, always defiant of dangers, loyal to his own ideals - the ideal male cultivated in mass media allows no room for weakness, and what's more, this ideal is further perverted to the ideal man being immensely successful with women (typically in shallow, purely sexual manner), able and very willing to resolve his differences with force (usually without using other means of argument first), physically well-developed and with little to no emotion. Just take a look at cult characters like James Bond or Rambo, and you have the basic picture.

Obviously, very few if any men can actually stand up to the ideal presented to them by the media and subconsciously expected from them by the society and even themselves. While most people consciously recognize the fiction behind it and the futility of pursuing this pseudo-ideal and happily cope with their current existence, nowhere in the world do men suffer from such bouts of depression as in the West. If the endless propaganda of the unattainable can subconsciously break even a healthy man, imagine what it can do to a less-than-stable person. So I guess that it is a perverted desire to be like the stereotypical male that drives some on killing sprees - if they had not lived like the ideal men, then they could at least die like them, tough and defiant, avenging real and perceived slights like is supposedly expected from them.

You left out one possible motive, (though your others do seem to hold water.) The desire for fame/infamy. Shooters don't always seem to be vengeful, and I don't believe that they are all mentally disturbed (in the sense of being "out of control.") Given the media attention that such cases attract, I believe some shooters may be influenced largely (or soley) by the desire to become known.

[ANARCHY IS ORDER]

if you guys want a good idea of the mind of a school shooter read "give a boy a gun" its a really good book. And from what i have thought of my self if i was going to shoot up my school i would use some kind of incenerary device to burn the school down around me as i try to tag my pray

[CyberWar]

The reason I left out fame is because such motive is an exception rather than rule and is typically characteristic to mentally disturbed people. The fame killers also do not tend to commit suicide after the attack, at least not until they realize the dire consequences their actions bring. So I think that would not be the motivation for most of the shooters.

As far as I'm informed, there indeed have not been any school shootings in my region. There have been a few knife attacks, but only one of them was lethal, and was perpetrated by a mentally-unstable adult, who had no connections with the attacked children or the school. He reported to be motivated by the desire of fame.

Good thing was that the guy got what he deserved - after receiving a few days of screen time and press coverage, he was silently dumped in a max security prison, and is said to have been removed from his cell dead just two days afterwards. Even though he was deliberately placed in solitary confinement for his own protection, this proves that even murderers and robbers are quite intolerant against child murder.

[archleone]

Continued from this thread.

Originally Posted by shetlan

So you're insinuating that desegregading the schools caused all this?

Not at all, but I can see from what I wrote how someone could get that. But you are you saying that having guns in schools kept school shootings from happening? Despite the fact that gun free school zones was instituted in 1990 and the first school shooting was in in 1970s.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by archleone

Not at all, but I can see from what I wrote how someone could get that. But you are you saying that having guns in schools kept school shootings from happening?

Not at all. But looking at the raw data, one can only conclude that school shootings became significantly more frequent when students and teachers where guaranteed not to be armed.

My secondary point being that the presence of guns on campus didn't promote or cause violence. The ratio of guns on campus to the number of shootings doesn't conclude that the presence of guns has anything to do with the frequency or lethality of the shootings.

Originally Posted by archleone

Despite the fact that gun free school zones was instituted in 1990 and the first school shooting was in in 1970s.

Actually, the first school shooting was the 1966 Austin Massacre (15 casualties).

Before the 1990 "Gun Free School Zone" Act
Between 1966 and 1990:
School Shootings - 13
Casualties - 48
Avg Shootings per year - .54 (less than one)
Avg Casualties per event - 3.69

After the 1990 "Gun Free School Zone" Act
1990 to 2008:
School Shootings - 62
Casualties - 152
Avg Shootings per year - 3.44
Avg Casualties per event - 2.45

So the number of shootings per year has been seven times higher since the "Gun Free Zone" act passed. Hmm, me thinks it didn't work.

[archleone]

Correlation does not imply causation. While those numbers drastically increase after Gun Free School Zone Act, I think there has to be something else effecting the number of school shootings because if you look at the number in the US compared to the number in canada or western europe the numbers are significantly higher and while I don't for sure I don't believe that guns are allowed in schools in canada or western europe. I think that there is a major cultural factor going here as CyberWar said that in eastern europe it doesn't really happen but it is a major problem in the US and to a lesser extent in Canada and Europe.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by archleone

Correlation does not imply causation. While those numbers drastically increase after Gun Free School Zone Act, I think there has to be something else effecting the number of school shootings . . .

So despite the black&white statistical evidence, you've decided to believe the polar opposite of what the evidence tells you. Correlation does not "always" imply causation - but only a fool ignores correlation when considering causes. The numbers jumped to 7 times after the Act passed. For that matter:

5 year comparisons:
1985-1990 there where 5 shoointgs
1991-1996 there where 18 shootings

From one per year to three per year over night - and you expect me to believe that the "helpless target school zone" act didn't bring it about?

Originally Posted by archleone

. . . because if you look at the number in the US compared to the number in canada or western europe the numbers are significantly higher and while I don't for sure I don't believe that guns are allowed in schools in canada or western europe.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Canada's gun laws (as well as those in most eastern european countries) are ridiculously stringent. This doesn't stop the criminal groups in those countries from obtaining weapons, but it would slow down a kid with a chip on his shoulder from getting one.

If you're going to compare other countrys, let's look at Israel. Teachers and professors are expected to carry sidearms in Israeli schools (as all are veterans of the IDF). How many school shootings have there been in Israel? None - there has never been a school shooting in Israel (with the exception of terrorist attacks).

Originally Posted by archleone

I think that there is a major cultural factor going here as CyberWar said that in eastern europe it doesn't really happen but it is a major problem in the US and to a lesser extent in Canada and Europe.

I don't deny that there is a cultural question to be addressed, but I find it ridiculously foolish to think that banning weapons on campus is going to prevent anything - especially when every serious study has proven that a larger number of armed citizens means a smaller amount of crime.

[archleone]

I'm not saying that it didn't effect it, but I think there is more to it than just Gun Free School Zone Act

Originally Posted by shetlan

You're comparing apples and oranges. Canada's gun laws (as well as those in most eastern european countries) are ridiculously stringent. This doesn't stop the criminal groups in those countries from obtaining weapons, but it would slow down a kid with a chip on his shoulder from getting one.

Even if Canada's gun laws are stringent isn't it worth saving one innocent child's life, I mean isn't one kid's life worth more than owning a gun.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by archleone

I'm not saying that it didn't effect it, but I think there is more to it than just Gun Free School Zone Act

I agree that there is more to the entire phenomenon than the gun free zone act - but the sudden and massive increase in the frequency is because of the gun free school zone act.

Originally Posted by archleone

Even if Canada's gun laws are stringent isn't it worth saving one innocent child's life, I mean isn't one kid's life worth more than owning a gun.

I'm not sure what that has to do with this conversation, but no. No, it is not.

We have gun laws in the United States because of our experience in the Revolutionary war - where the British confiscated weapons in anticipation of the conflict to prevent the people from fighting back. Our founders realized that the government would eventually become oppressive so they built the right to own weapons into our constitution.

To answer your question once again - no, one child's life is not worth securing ourselves against domestic oppression.

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

While we have quite stringent gun control laws, I would not say it is hard to obtain a black-market firearm in Latvia,l school violence.
. Just take a look at cult characters like James Bond or Rambo, and you have the basic picture.

Hey, don't call James Bond "western" Culture. He is European--created by an Englishman; and all the movies are from Pinewood Studios, England. You would need to include all of Europe, then, in your "western" stereotype.

EDIT: If you include Europe in "Western Culture"; CyberWar; that includes You, too, Last I looked, Latvia was Europe. So, are you saying You are responsible, too?

Where I live Carrying guns is supposedly fine. Yet I don't see one. But, our deaths per capita are far less than a big, restricted city. like New York.
The presence or supposed presence of a gun as a deterrent/defense will
slow some down, but can't stop all shootings. Just look at Scotland--handguns and semi autos were banned; then violent crime tripled.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

Good post Steve,

In order for an adult to carry a handgun under a CCW, CHL, or CPL they would have to go through at least the steps bellow. Most states require 2 finger print sets and 2 photos, one for the state and one for feds.

;

Again, folks, I've been in touch with a C/W class teacher, and "CCW" is the Crime; not the permit.

Most of your rules apply to most states. But, alcohol addiction would not affect getting a permit. Maybe felony DUI; but, you said, no felonies.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by archleone

Even if Canada's gun laws are stringent isn't it worth saving one innocent child's life, I mean isn't one kid's life worth more than owning a gun.

Not when banning guns leads to more shootings, no. shetlan's basic point here is that the presence of guns in schools did not cause shootings. If it did, they would have been more prevelant back when there were fewer restrictions.

It's worth noting that school shooters usually plan/fantasize about their shooting before they actually do it. If they know that no-one else at the school is armed, the fantasy becomes more attractive - the thrill of walking the hallways unchallenged, the power to kill whoever you please - of course it appeals to the unhinged teenager. But if it's known that there are armed security and/or teachers, things get a little more complicated. Sure, a shooter could probably get the drop on one or two, but after that he/she will have to look over their shoulder to make sure someone's not sneaking up on them with a handgun.

Shooters want victims, not opponents. I'd agree that metal detectors etc. are a good idea, but I'm quite sure that having armed teachers would act as a deterrent.

Besides, if guns are so bad, why do cops carry them? It's not the gun, it's the person. If a crackhead can buy an illegal gun to hold up a store, then any teenager with a decent allowance can get one too.

[archleone]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Hey, don't call James Bond "western" Culture. He is European--created by an Englishman; and all the movies are from Pinewood Studios, England. You would need to include all of Europe, then, in your "western" stereotype.

Wow getting defensive or what, western culture is the US and western european culture not just US.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Not when banning guns leads to more shootings, no. shetlan's basic point here is that the presence of guns in schools did not cause shootings. If it did, they would have been more prevelant back when there were fewer restrictions.

But banning guns, not just in schools, does lead to fewer school shootings, though I don't know how it relates to other violent crimes, but just looking at the number of school shootings in western europe where the gun laws are much stricter than compared to the US shows that strict guns laws does decrease school shootings. Maybe guns for teachers would also decrease school shootings but most of the teachers at my school wouldn't want a gun and even if they had to have one how many of them could actually use when the time came and you also have to consider that most teachers aren't trained in firing weapons and might hit another student when the teachers tries to take down the attacker.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Again, folks, I've been in touch with a C/W class teacher, and "CCW" is the Crime; not the permit.

Most of your rules apply to most states. But, alcohol addiction would not affect getting a permit. Maybe felony DUI; but, you said, no felonies.

Tell your CCW instructor to slap you for calling him a teacher, then tell your instructor to slap him self if he informed you of the above.

A license can not be denied if you meet the said Criteria’s. Permits can be denied regardless. A county or city can stop issuing permits for whatever reason. They can not stop issuing licenses as long as folks meet the criteria. Counties in CA can and do refuse to issue CCW permits for any reason. If that county issues them at all. It’s a permit.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Most of your rules apply to most states. But, alcohol addiction would not affect getting a permit..

Admit your addicted to alcohol on your application. Then tell me when your license arrives.




Can anyone point out what the differences are between the following locations:



Knob Creek machinegun shoot. (where thousands of people go to shot mini-guns, 50 cals, AK-47s, M-16s, canons, and explosives.)

Firearms dealer retail stores.

Firearms ranges.

Gun shows.



AND




Court Houses

Schools

Hospitals

Nursery homes

Bars

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by archleone

but just looking at the number of school shootings in western europe where the gun laws are much stricter than compared to the US shows that strict guns laws does decrease school shootings.

Take a look at this Wiki list of school shootings. Note that the US has more than the rest of the world combined. Then explain to me why the rate has increased dramatically in recent years, despite "gun-free schools" and tighter restrictions. BTW, there is an abundance of firearms in the middle east - but almost no school shootings. There is a cultural element here that you need to acknowledge.

Originally Posted by archleone

Maybe guns for teachers would also decrease school shootings but most of the teachers at my school wouldn't want a gun and even if they had to have one how many of them could actually use when the time came and you also have to consider that most teachers aren't trained in firing weapons and might hit another student when the teachers tries to take down the attacker.

Firstly, no-one said that pistols should be handed out with every teaching diploma. Only qualified people who have passed background checks and have appropriate training should be carrying firearms on their person. I would rather the risk of getting hit by "friendly fire" than the near-certainty of being killed by a gunman that no-one can stop. Besides, what makes you think the average cop is going to be any better?

A couple of examples of shootings being stopped by armed staff or students:

Mercaz HaRav Massacre.
Pearl High School Shooting.

[ninefingers]

[quote=archleone;76906]Wow getting defensive or what, western culture is the US and western european culture not just US.[QUOTE/]

No, It was all "branded" as US culture by the poster. Besides, if there were no market, no one would watch macho man/violent flicks. There must be a market.

This is nothing new. There have been violent heroes for thousands of years--Hercules, etc. Did the publishing of " The Three Musketeers:" bring a sudden rise of school sword fights (Real swords?)Oof course not.

I think lack of parental responsibility; breakup of families so they don't have a strong father figure (Default is kids go to the Mother); and the forbidding of corporal punishment to kids brought it about. Also, kids aren't getting the fear of God by having to go to Sunday school like they all once did.

The fact that it is mostly the LMC kids that do the shootings is similar to the Olympic effect--if a person wins a Bronze; they are happy they got it. But, a Silver winner only thinks how they could have had the Gold....
There is a lot of "Gee, I coulda; Gee, I woulda... in the second waves. Makes for more stress.

But banning guns, not just in schools, does lead to fewer school shootings, though I don't know how it relates to other violent crimes, but just looking at the number of school shootings in western europe where the gun laws are much stricter than compared to the US shows that strict guns laws does decrease school shootings.acker.

Again, it is a cultural thing. Only honest people obey laws, remember?
And, Europe is just recently (200 years or less) split from many Monarchies, where people obeyed or else.
We are a Nation of has beens and cast offs and crooks who couldn't make it in Europe and elsewhere, like the Aussie Pommies.

[Steve_TPF]

And yet Australia has far less school shootings than the US. Much less gun crime generally, even before the 1996 ban on semi-autos.

In fact the only australian school shooting I can recall is the Monash University shooting. If memory serves, the shooter was an overseas student, not an australian!

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by FerretBone

Tell your CCW instructor to slap you for calling him a teacher, then tell your instructor to slap him self if he informed you of the above.

I Don't really want to Argue with you; you're a good man...but: No. "CCW" is a colloquialism; a loose term used by the media and cops to describe the crime of illegal concealed weapon; and, very loosely, to describe a Concealed Weapons Permit. No Where on the Permit or paper work does it say: "CCW", at least in AZ or CA. I just looked at one, again. If you google "CCW" on a state website, you will Probably be sent to the laws and classes in Concealed Carry, but, legally, technically, this isn't the right term. (It's a Small point, to be sure.)

If anyone doesn't believe me; call Tucson Guns at (520) 722-6886.

And, Steve: don't blame your lack of shootings on US culture. You made a lot of sense up to that point; for once. There has been a rise in violent crime of 300% in Scotland since the gun ban, remember? UK is UK. Australia had its violent past; too; don't deny it. Ned Kelley; murders of Aborigines by white Australians and Pommies fresh off boat. It happens in every culture.

Do you now Not agree that breakdown of families and parental responsibility is probably the cause? What else is it--are you saying all Americans are murdering Terrorists or Cowboys at heart? Come here and see.....we are not.

[archleone]

I think you guys(shetlan and steve, NOT nine fingers) have a point about banning guns on school zones not being effective and I think that there is a much larger cultural impact on this because Australia has very few and the US has so many but the gun laws seem more or less the same to me. But you must admit that it seems that the very tight restrictions in europe does lower the likelihood of school shootings.

[FerretBone]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

I Don't really want to Argue with you; you're a good man.

Thanks, I have to say that was a spot on observation of me. Were not arguing, were debating.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

but: No. "CCW" is a colloquialism; a loose term used by the media and cops to describe the crime of illegal concealed weapon; and, very loosely, to describe a Concealed Weapons Permit. No Where on the Permit or paper work does it say: "CCW", at least in AZ or CA. I just looked at one, again. If you google "CCW" on a state website, you will Probably be sent to the laws and classes in Concealed Carry, but, legally, technically, this isn't the right term. (It's a Small point, to be sure.)

If anyone doesn't believe me; call Tucson Guns at (520) 722-6886.

Someone pass me a beer while I call Aronld. Because you want him and the state of California to quit writing permit on their CCWs they issue, and replace that with "license". Plus they should rewrite their intire penal code and replace CCW with, well something else. I'm just having fun man. lol

California ccw handgun penal code 4006.

4006. CCW Fees.
As authorized pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 12054 of
the Penal Code, the Firearms Division fees for licenses to carry
concealed weapons (CCW) are as follows:
(a)(1) Initial fee for 90 day employment CCW license: $22
(2) Renewal fee for 90 day employment CCW license: $22
(b)(1) Initial fee for 2 year resident CCW license: $44
(2) Renewal fee for for 2 year resident CCW license: $44
(c)(1) Initial fee for 3 year judicial CCW license: $66
(2) Renewal fee for 3 year judicial CCW license: $66
(d)(1) Initial fee for 4 year reserve peace officer CCW license:
$88
(2) Renewal fee for 4 year reserve peace officer CCW
license: $88

Originally Posted by ninefingers

" "CCW" is a colloquialism; a loose term used by the media and cops to describe the crime of illegal concealed weapon;"

Remember when I posted this in the CCW thread? You just proved me right with your last post.

"A permit allows you to engage in something that you otherwise couldn’t do.

You say the term CCW is "to describe the crime of illegal concealed weapon"

I issue you a permit to, carry a concealed weapon. Which would otherwise be illegally concealed carrying of a weapon. That is why the permit that allows you to carry legally is called a concealed carry weapon Permit. Or CCW permit.

"A license is like protection that you pay to do something that you would otherwise be allowed to do. Hunting, fishing, driving, owning a business etc.

A license is easier to get, because your meeting requirements to employ in otherwise acceptable activities, instead of seeking permission to break an established law."

It's called a permit, because your asking permission to break the law. The law you are asking to break is the concealed carry of a weapon law. So the Permit you must have to break that law would be a CCW. Short for Concealed Carry Weapon, in CA.
You were mostly right, I'm just explaining why the parts you were right about, were right.







School shootings are the fault of bad laws.
A piece of paper taped on a school door never stops a criminal from bring in firearms. It does stop law abiding citizens from bringing their legally carried firearms inside. They create safe zones, safe zones for gun men to pursue their crimes of murder without fear of being challenged by anyone.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

And, Steve: don't blame your lack of shootings on US culture. You made a lot of sense up to that point; for once. There has been a rise in violent crime of 300% in Scotland since the gun ban, remember?

1: I'm not "blaming" Australia's lack of gun crime on US culture. Since low gun crime is a good thing, I'm not "blaming it" on anyone.
2: Quote a source on Scotland's crime statistics, don't just make an unsubstantiated claim.
3: If crime in Scotland has risen since the ban, that would support my (and Ferret's) point that there is little or no link between legal, responsible gun ownership and gun crime. It's not the licensed shooters who are the problem.

I really don't know what you were trying to achieve with any of that.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

UK is UK. Australia had its violent past; too; don't deny it. Ned Kelley; murders of Aborigines by white Australians and Pommies fresh off boat. It happens in every culture.

Hmm. You mention events that happened over a hundred years ago. What does that have to do with anything? We are discussing the current situation, which is that school shootings in the US have risen despite "gun free zones".

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Do you now Not agree that breakdown of families and parental responsibility is probably the cause? What else is it--are you saying all Americans are murdering Terrorists or Cowboys at heart? Come here and see.....we are not.

I didn't say anything of the kind. I merely pointed out that Australia's gun crime has always been at a lower level than the US, even before the 1996 gun bans.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics gives a summary of australian gun crime in the 15-year period up to 1995 (the year before the new laws). Note that gun deaths were declining steadily before the ban, despite no change in gun laws.

Originally Posted by "archleone

But you must admit that it seems that the very tight restrictions in europe does lower the likelihood of school shootings.

Since there are countries with much more liberal gun laws and still far less school shootings, no, I don't agree. Anti-gun lobbyists like to point to examples of strict gun laws and low gun crime - but they completely ignore examples of high gun ownership and low crime. Such as Kennesaw. Mandatory ownership of a handgun for every head of household - yet no fatal shootings in the 25 years since the passage of the "compulsory ownership" law. Explain that one to me.

[FerretBone]

“The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.”

Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............................................



Teenagers used to bring firearms to school at times when school shootings were unheard of. Back when my dad was in middle school he brought a rifle to school for show and tell. Firearms were brought to school for after school hunting and target shooting. ROTC used real firearms with live ammunition. Like Sheltan said, Israel, has had very, few school shootings since 1974. Because in 1974 they armed and trained their teachers and administrators in firearm use. Then made it mandatory for them to carry at schools. Good idea? Well the numbers sure do support it. Only two school shootings in Israel since 1974 that I could find.




In the US we all hear about successful school massacres, but most of us never hear of the failed massacres.

1. “Edinboro, Pennsylvania. A 14-year-old middle school student opened fire at a school graduation dance, being held at a local restaurant. The shooter killed one teacher and wounded two students and another teacher. The armed teenager was apprehended by the restaurant owner, who grabbed his own shotgun from his office and went after the shooter. Staring into the owner's shotgun, the teen dropped his gun and surrendered.”

2. “Pearl, Mississippi. A 16-year-old sophomore entered Pearl High with a hunting rifle under his overcoat. He opened fire, killing two students and wounding seven. The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, ran to his truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Running back, he spotted the shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal put his gun to the shooter's neck and held him until police arrived.”

3. “Grundy, Virginia. At Appalachian Law School, a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots fired, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Bridges' gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air.”

I could post these all day. My point is that firearms were in schools in the times when school shootings were zero. Teachers used to be armed in large numbers. What if all staff in US schools were armed today? I say problem solved.


While were at it, look at how many times a firearm actually prevented a crime or saved a life.

“21,020,28”
Cases so far this year where a firearm was used to save a life. In the US!
The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

I know its not actually a real number because its based off a 1994 average, acquired by polling around 4,000 people. But neither is the FBI’s crime clock. It is however the most in depth study, and has the highest number of people polled for a study like this. This study was also conducted by a strong gun control advocate, who is a liberal Democrat, that was trying to help sarah brady‘s Handgun Control, Inc. BWHAAA!!


Topping that off,

“to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.
The Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled.”

The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock

Their source was the

"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,"by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995.

It seems to me that the media, or thought of media coverage after a students shooting is one of the lures of a teen shooter. That along with the lack of any defense from any person at a school makes it a perfect place and time to go out with a bang. Leaving behind in the teens mind, an hour of glory after there death. It's an "I'll show them" aditude. "After days of world wide coverage, my hate will be seen, and taken seriouslly."
I think the lure of the media coverage that is sure to come after the spree, is a huge factor in school shootings. The other factor is down right shitty parenting, and upbringing. NOT FIREARMS.

[ninefingers]

Good Comeback, FerretBone!

Again, people; laws only affect honest people. I don't Care How many] guns laws are in your peaceful country; it doesn't affect crooks. It won't affect school shooters, either. Anyone who thinks laws=peace has flawed logic.

Guns get vilified by the press more now. There is less rural/small town society now where hunting/target shooting was the rule, not the exception. Plus, civilian marksmanship classes have all but disappeared--they were most popular during WWII; where, as said, kids had .22's in their lockers and practiced in the school basement. Probably unpopular wars like Vietnam did something to quash this, also.

And, as far as failed shootings: School shootings get sensationalized out of proportion because of the media. S/S sells papers. So, a hundred kids get killed in 5 years in the US at school shootings? What about the 50 or so a Month that get murdered in NYC and Chicago? That doesn't make the front page news, most of the time, but death is death.

This front page factor only incites more kids to try it--their "12 seconds of fame".

This has been covered much on Anarchology.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

2: Quote a source on Scotland's crime statistics, don't just make an unsubstantiated claim.

It isn't unsubstantiated. Being part of the UK, you should have read it in the papers. The burden of proof is on the accuser, remeber? Oh, well, Lazy. Here it is:

http:///www.nraila.org/Legislation/F...d.aspx?id=1117 . There are also links that percentages per capita of violent crime (not murder) is greater in the UK than the the US. How do all the gun laws explain That away?

You mention events that happened over a hundred years ago. What does that have to do with anything? We are discussing the current situation, which is that school shootings in the US have risen despite "gun free zones".

No, you are trying to throw your lack of shootings in the face of my country, to condemn us as a whole. I am telling you You and everyone else had a violent past, too. People from Latvia and places who try to blame shootings on "Western culture" ; for example; had their civil wars. revolutions, Dark Ages, too. No one is immune.

Since there are countries with much more liberal gun laws and still far less school shootings, no, I don't agree.

No, there aren't Everyone knows Europe and most of the rest of the world hates guns. Especially Germany, Switzerland, and the UK. ( Switzerland Used to be very gun friendly, a "William Tell" society , until recently.) Italy probably has the Most "liberal", but not nearly as liberal as compared to the U.S.

Archleone: Exactly the point I was trying to make. Aussies seem to be able to "rationalize" their lack of shootings--but the obvious is there are Far Less People in Aus. than the US; and the Population Density isn't nearly as great or as well distributed. Everyone lives on one coast. Now, when Australia gets as big and as dense as the US; let's see if the gun violence goes up....

Until that happens; you are all comparing apples with oranges.

There was no "CCW thread" Someone asked:"How many of you out there Open Carry"? It degraded into a bunch of name calling without addressing the issue. I mentioned the law vs. Reality in AZ. and someone called me a liar. I quoted Appellate court links for people fighting CCW charges on them because some liberal judge took it on himself to re interpret the law. Also, the AZCC website about this. Someone else quoted a site on the law's O/C-C/C abuses by the NRA, it was all in there, too. Again, I'm called a liar.

It isn't called a "CCW" in AZ. No where does it saw "CCW" on anything. Calling me a Liar?

I'll have to look up CPC 4006 , I see no link, just a bunch of text that could have been written by anyone.

What does this have to do with School shootings, anyway? How did "CCW"/vs C/C get in here? For that matter, If I were a pilot, I'd carry, period. I have a right to defend myself. No peace officer or lawyer or judge can dispute that last point. There are no provisos or footnotes saying:"Except in an Airplane"; "Except if it's a Cop who tries to shoot you"; etc.

Originally Posted by FerretBone

2. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's,

No. Check the recent change in Swiss laws. They Used to be very unrestricted; but now they are one of the tightest.

Protell: proTELL - Gesellschaft für ein freiheitliches Waffenrecht

Also, Swiiss law gun laws: http://www.johnylott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html

.

Also you should note. Since 1934, only two people have been charged with murder with a legal Machine gun in the US. And one of those was a cop. Legal machinegun onwers go though the same process as a permit holder.

No, to get a class 3 is much more involved. 6-week waiting period; $200 transfer tax. fingerprints, etc. And they can deny you at whim. ( Most states outlaw them, anyway.)

No one has ever been convicted of murder using a licensed machine gun from the institution of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. Only a retarded fool would go through all the rigmarole and background checks just to use his $25,000 Thompson to kill.(All this and the restrictions/$200 per transfer tax makes a legal M/G about $10,0000, minimum. An old shotgun is cheaper, easier to get, and kills just as dead.) A retarded fool wouldn't make it through the process. anyway.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

It isn't unsubstantiated. Being part of the UK, you should have read it in the papers. The burden of proof is on the accuser, remeber? Oh, well, Lazy. Here it is:

1: When presenting something that claims to be fact the burden of proof is on the presenter. You made the claim about Scotland's crime rate tripling, the burden is on you to prove your case.

2: You think I'm part of the UK? BWAHAHAHAHA! On the top right of my posts it clearly says "Melbourne, Australia." As it has for the last four years.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

http:///www.nraila.org/Legislation/F...d.aspx?id=1117 . There are also links that percentages per capita of violent crime (not murder) is greater in the UK than the the US. How do all the gun laws explain That away?

They don't. You are supporting the argument that less guns do not equal less crime, which is what Ferretbone and I have been saying all along.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

No, you are trying to throw your lack of shootings in the face of my country, to condemn us as a whole. I am telling you You and everyone else had a violent past, too. People from Latvia and places who try to blame shootings on "Western culture" ; for example; had their civil wars. revolutions, Dark Ages, too. No one is immune.

I'm not condemning the US as a whole, nor the millions of responsible gun owners who live there. Yes, every country has had a violent past, but the violent present of the US is far more violent than Australia's. I'm saying that gun control hysterics need to look at something other than guns themselves as the cause of crime.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

No, there aren't Everyone knows Europe and most of the rest of the world hates guns. Especially Germany, Switzerland, and the UK. ( Switzerland Used to be very gun friendly, a "William Tell" society , until recently.) Italy probably has the Most "liberal", but not nearly as liberal as compared to the U.S.

Funny you should mention Italy. I couldn't find any Italian school-shootings. So their "more liberal" laws don't seen to have hurt them at all.

As for Germany:

Strict German gun laws fail to prevent school shooting.

Well I'll be damned. A 17 year-old who couldn't legally buy a firearm got hold of one anyway and went on a shooting spree. Who would have imagined that could happen? (Apart from Ferretbone, shetlan, myself and anyone else with half a brain.)

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Protell: proTELL - Gesellschaft für ein freiheitliches Waffenrecht

Also, Swiiss law gun laws: http://www.johnylott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html

The first link is in Swiss, the second doesn't work. ("Page not found.")

[ninefingers]

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

1: When presenting something that claims to be fact the burden of proof is on the presenter. You made the claim about Scotland's crime rate tripling, the burden is on you to prove your case.

It's There. Plus, you can't deny the problems the UK has had recently, after the gun ban.

2: You think I'm part of the UK? BWAHAHAHAHA! On the top right of my posts it clearly says "Melbourne, Australia." As it has for the last four years.

Aus. Is the UK if the UK can set their gun banning laws on you. Have a revolution, then. "Till then; you are all the same, gun haters that rationalize it with nothing.

They don't. You are supporting the argument that less guns do not equal less crime, which is what Ferretbone and I have been saying all along.

More of your non sense; like: "he was accused, therefore he Must be Guilty, then". How can I trust You if you say anything like That?
READ the POST. Also, this is word-for-word off the NRA/ILA site. I didn't write it.

I am supporting that only an idiot thinks more laws=less crime. If crime goes down, there must be other factors. Only Honest people obey laws. Or, do you want to argue with That just because you want to argue with Me?

Strict German gun laws fail to prevent school shooting.

Well I'll be damned. A 17 year-old who couldn't legally buy a firearm got hold of one anyway and went on a shooting spree. Who would have imagined that could happen?

Ok; Scarecrow;
I didn't say they Didn't. Read my post. I am saying stricter gun laws don't Necessarily= less crime. Just that you were wrong about "more liberal countries" . The US is the most liberal gun laws in the world, as I said, Europe is the strictest. Possibly, Italy is a small exception. That's what I said; not: " how Germany does/doesn't have more shootings; so there, etc."

The first link is in Swiss, the second doesn't work. ("Page not found.")

There is no "Swiss" language, smart boy. It is German. French. and Italian.
I'm sorry it came up that way; but that's the links I was given. I'll dig for some, first-hand, in British English.

But, look it up. Swiss are the tightest, Now, in Europe. They Used to be very lax.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by ninefingers

It's There. Plus, you can't deny the problems the UK has had recently, after the gun ban.

It's there now that you posted a link. I never denied that the UK has had problems after the ban, I just wanted you to provide a reference for your claim.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

Aus. Is the UK if the UK can set their gun banning laws on you. Have a revolution, then. "Till then; you are all the same, gun haters that rationalize it with nothing.

The UK can not "set their gun banning laws on Australia". Aust makes its own laws. Furthermore, I'm not a gun hater, nor am I advocating blanket gun bans.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

More of your non sense; like: "he was accused, therefore he Must be Guilty, then". How can I trust You if you say anything like That?
READ the POST. Also, this is word-for-word off the NRA/ILA site. I didn't write it.

I am supporting that only an idiot thinks more laws=less crime. If crime goes down, there must be other factors. Only Honest people obey laws. Or, do you want to argue with That just because you want to argue with Me?

I agree that only honest people obey laws. Nor am I claiming that "more laws equal less crime". I actually agree with you on this, why are you trying to argue?

Originally Posted by ninefingers

I didn't say they Didn't. Read my post. I am saying stricter gun laws don't Necessarily= less crime. Just that you were wrong about "more liberal countries" . The US is the most liberal gun laws in the world, as I said, Europe is the strictest. Possibly, Italy is a small exception. That's what I said; not: " how Germany does/doesn't have more shootings; so there, etc."

What I actually said, in response to archleone was:

Originally Posted by archleone

But you must admit that it seems that the very tight restrictions in europe does lower the likelihood of school shootings.

Originally Posted by Steve_TPF

Since there are countries with much more liberal gun laws and still far less school shootings, no, I don't agree.

I was referring to countries with more liberal laws than Europe, with less school shootings than the US. I probably should have made that more clear.

Originally Posted by ninefingers

But, look it up. Swiss are the tightest, Now, in Europe. They Used to be very lax.

And yet, back in 1995, with their supposedly "lax" laws, the homicide rate was considerably lower than that of the US. Note that guns aren't banned in Switzerland - but they are required to be licensed and registered. You call that "tight"?

Originally Posted by NRA: Gun laws around the world - do they work?

The table clearly shows that, regardless of their gun laws, Western European nations have roughly comparable rates of both murder and suicide. This cannot plausibly be attributed to severe handgun restrictions because the highest murder rates among these nations are in the nations with the most restrictive gun laws (Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany). In those restrictive nations, the average murder rate of 2.73 per 100,000 population is over twice as high as the 1.26 average rate of Switzerland, Israel and Austria, where gun laws are least restrictive).

In short: I agree that laws don't prevent crime, nor do gun bans prevent shootings.

You seem to be very confused. Perhaps the two months ban headcase gave you will give you time to sort out whatever it is you are trying to say.