Tuesday, September 28, 2010


[LINK] The author of "More Guns, Less Crime" was scheduled to speak at the UT law School tonight, an event that must now be postponed because a man firing an assault weapon on campus ending up shooting himself in the Library. They are still looking for a possible 2nd suspect or involved person, and all events on campus have been canceled.

The lecture was hosted by Libertarian Longhorns, the UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the UT Objectivism Society and the UT Federalist Society.

Jeff Shi, president of UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, was quoted saying
"I don’t want to comment on any political aspects of this, I hope everything turns out well and the only casualties are the bad guys."


Connie, Orlando said...

Thought of you when I heard the news this afternoon on the radio. austin perked up my ears. This is horrible & so glad no one, except the shooter, was injured/killed.

I've given up on trying to understand those on the Right. I don't think it's possible to even have a civil discussion with most (if not all) of them. Their views are simply beyond my comprehension.

Blueberry said...

Yeah, I try to avoid those discussions. There's really no point to them, as nobody who feels strongly about something is likely to be won over to the opposite side.

I attended enough pro/anti health care reform rallies to get my fill of right-wing "civil discussion."

And these gun nuts... I want nothing to do with them.

Professor Chaos said...

More guns less crime? That's a real thing? What the he'll is wrong with these people?

Blueberry said...

MrB pointed out that Archie Bunker said in an episode that all the airlines needed to do was make everybody carry a gun on board, and it would prevent hijackings. It was a funny line because it was so stupid (even for Archie). Now the fringe gun nuts are emboldened enough to not just say that stuff out loud but to form clubs based on it.

Codename46 said...

I'm glad everyone who has commented on this post has demonstrated such open-mindedness on the campus carry debate. It is very encouraging to see people willing to research the facts about gun crime and concealed-carry without resorting to ad hominem statements, baseless assumptions, and personal bias.

When you guys seriously start doing some research on this important issue without resorting to petty insults, then the dialogue between pro and anti-carry groups can start.

By the way, we did host the John Lott event at an off-campus bookstore across the street from campus. Over two dozen people came armed. Amazingly no one was shot.

Jeff Shi
President, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

Blueberry said...

Jeff, what is amazing is that no one else was shot by Colton Toomey other than himself!

Since you are in sarcasm mode, I will join in and add that I'm sure that no petty ad hominem statements, baseless assumptions, or personal bias presented themselves at your meeting, and that petty insults (perhaps even in reference to the intelligence level of your opponents) were not spoken.


Was Mr. Toomey a member of your organization?

Codename46 said...


In fact you would be correct in that sarcastic assumption. If you actually showed up you would have seen first-hand an extremely academic and research-oriented analysis of gun control vs. crime control. I don't think Mr. Lott uttered the word "Liberal" once in that lecture, or anything to the tune of "hippie", "peacenik", "ignorant", and the like, regardless of how accurate those statements may be to some people on the anti-carry crowd. It's interesting that the petty insults mainly fly in one direction.

In fact we're going to have the entire lecture on youtube shortly. Do you think you'll be able to handle watching it? I mean, LOOK OUT, HE'S ARMED WITH FACTS AND STATISTICS. That may be a little too much! I will give you that Mr. Lott did make an academic critical analysis of the research and claims made by his opponents. Does that count as a "petty insult" to you? Wouldn't surprise me.

Blueberry said...

"It's interesting that the petty insults mainly fly in one direction."

I did not hear Mr. Lott's talk, and I believe your claims about the nature of it, but are you trying to tell me that the statement above is true of your crowd in a casual situation, such as conversation... or say... blog posts or comments? If that is your assertion, then that is BULLSHIT and a LIE... and you know it.

There are plenty of facts and statistics to go around, enough to "prove" any point that someone wishes to prove regardless if it is your viewpoint or mine.

I have a real question for you: Based on the premise of "more guns, less crime," does it also make sense that if all countries had nuclear weapons, that the world would be a safer place? Would it be a world where you'd want to live? Alright, that's 2 questions.

Codename46 said...

Note that I said that the petty insults MAINLY fly in one direction. The vast majority of these ad hominem statements are made by people who oppose us, call us "gun nuts", say that we're "compensating for something", and things along that line. I stand by that comment and I know it to be true.

"There are plenty of facts and statistics to go around, enough to "prove" any point that someone wishes to prove regardless if it is your viewpoint or mine."

Then perhaps government statistics such as the Texas DPS annual CHL conviction rate report and the FBI UCR crime reports are partisan then? Go look at any of those reports and see if you can make the conclusion that more guns = more crime.

Also, nice Straw Man on the nuclear deterrence question. Not falling for that one.

Blueberry said...

correction: I wrote "Colton Toomey" in the comments, and should have written "Tooley."

Kerry said...

So..I'm not really for or really against firearms in general..I was just reading through these comments, and..uh..

There are plenty of facts and statistics to go around, enough to "prove" any point that someone wishes to prove regardless if it is your viewpoint or mine.

Blueberry, I'm not sure if that's the way you'd want to argue your point. I mean, if you don't want to at least acknowledge some quantitative data, then really all that's left behind is dogma/ideology, right? You can't defend a thesis by saying, "there are too many conclusions you can draw from the data, thus the data doesn't matter".

Just saying...if you want to convince fence-sitters like me, I think you should probably reconsider your persuasive strategy...

Blueberry said...

Kerry, first of all, I want to make clear that this is not a debate. I am not arguing a point. I do not have a persuasive strategy. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You will have to make up your own mind.

Second, there are studies, charts, graphs, surveys, and data to go around that support both sides. Conclusions drawn, in any case, are opinions. Opinions, even expert opinions differ. Opinions are not the same thing as facts. What we believe is always going to be heavily colored by our own personal biases and ideology. That is because we are humans.