How is this possible - isn't Harvard a Gun Free Zone?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/shooting_report.html

CAMBRIDGE -- A man was shot this afternoon at the entrance of a Harvard University residence hall, and police were searching for several assailants. Tom Conley, house master of Kirkland House, told the student newspaper that the victim was not a Harvard student.

The shooting shattered the calm on the campus as students were studying for final exams.

You could walk into Harvard yard dragging a howitzer if you wanted to.

Not that I am suggesting that...

:eyes:

as the rationale for more guns.

Except when you talk about gun violence, which they then claim doesn't exist.

only a small percentage of those guns are used in the commission of "gun violence". The other guns must be defective.

You speak of gun owners and those that believe in having the means for self-defense as if they are just criminals that haven't been caught yet. People don't commit violence because they have guns; yet violent people use guns to facilitate their trade.

Don't confuse means with motivation.

I don't think you can substantiate that anyone denies that "gun violence" exists, but the term as it is used in the gun control debate isn't a very helpful one. Indeed, it's downright misleading, which I would argue is its very raison d'être. It's implied to mean "violent crime committed using firearms" with a strong insinuation that many, even all, of the individuals killed would still be alive were it not for the (legal) availability of firearms. But when you look more closely at the figures, you find that they include unintentional shootings and, more importantly, suicides.

Over the past three decades, the ratio of homicides by firearm to suicides by firearm in the US has been roughly 4:5, so adding firearm suicides to the number more than doubles the number of fatalities. That's an effective way to pad the numbers. Problem is, there's zero evidence to assume the American suicide rate would be any lower if it weren't for the availability of firearms. As it is, the American suicide rate is no higher than that of many wealthy, industrialized countries with far tighter gun control laws, and is significantly lower than some (most notably Japan, which has tight gun control laws indeed).

The term "gun violence" also offers a handy way of skewing international comparisons, because while rates of violent crime involving firearms in the US are high compared to other wealthy industrialized nations, rates of violent crime overall are nothing remarkable. Indeed, violent crime is higher in several countries in north-western Europe. The glaring exception to this is homicide, but if you factor out young urban black males (i.e. those most likely, due to socio-economic and cultural issues, to be involved in the drug trade), US homicide rates do not stand out.

The long and short of it is that socio-economic inequality plays a far larger role in crime than guns do, and that's what we really need to be addressing. As long we have what amounts to an inner-city black underclass, gun control measures are at best going to have a cosmetic effect.

Telling us how all violence anywhere is the result of guns, and that if they didn't exist we'd all live in the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

So really, who's exploiting gun violence more?

n/t

There is no law that can make you safe by forbidding guns in any particular area, because those who disregard laws against homicide don't care about laws against carrying guns.

There is no law that can remove all the guns. There is no US politician stupid enough to suggest trying such a law to see if it works.

Well, then, we do see eye-to-eye on that.

Only, your solution -- "more guns for all!" -- is something I disagree with...

Not for those who have demonstrated that they are criminal, irresponsible or mentally incompetent. For the rest of the gun nuts; if you can trust someone with one gun, you can trust them with 10. If you can't trust someone with 10 guns, one is too many.

Further; if you can trust someone not to cause mayhem with a single shot rifle or handgun, then you can trust them not to cause mayhem with a "large capacity" semi-auto. If you can't trust someone with a single shot rifle or handgun, then you can't trust them with a "large capacity" semi-auto.

Though personally, I think there's a certain number of guns one can accrue that becomes alarming, and probably a sign of deeper personality schisms.... Do innately centered people keep large caches of weapons?

As for an essentially trustworthy person being the same with a Glock, a Winchester, or an AR-15, yeah, okay. But how do we protect society's interest in keeping some of those out of the hands of the untrustworthy?

There may be some people who can be trusted to drive at 90 mph. That doesn't mean that should be the speed limit on city streets.

and I've known a few people who wound up dead, thanks to the ease of gun ownership. So I know full well what the "untrustworthy" can do...

As for an essentially trustworthy person being the same with a Glock, a Winchester, or an AR-15, yeah, okay. But how do we protect society's interest in keeping some of those out of the hands of the untrustworthy?

If a person is trustworthy regarding firearms, then he is trustworthy for any and all firearms. If he is untrustworthy with firearms, he is untrustworthy for any and all firearms. It makes no sense to say "you are trusted with a .30-30 but not trusted with an AK-47 clone".

...based on someone's past use, or misuse of same.

The minimum we can do (and in a very minimum way, we do, sometimes) is put similar parameters on firearms.

And where the raison d'etre of a car isn't to wound or maim someone or something, that's pretty much the reason guns were invented, whether you restrict yourself to target practice or no.

Some cognizance of the intention of a device would be good in the "well regulated" part of the gun debate...

Are you suggesting that the objects (firearms) need more restrictions? Or is it the users who need more restrictions? Both sets of restrictions seem to be rather high while enforcement often seems quite low.

Most of us here do not have problems understanding the purpose of guns. They are designed to fire bullets down range with repeatable accuracy. Long-range hole punch, if you will. It is the user's bad choice of target that usually gets him in trouble. The properties of guns that make them dangerous are the same ones that make them useful, similarly with chainsaws.

specifically?

The owning of and training with firearms is considered a hobby to many people including a large number of the police who are hired to protect you and me.

I'm sure it was just an oversight on their part.;-)