Shots Fired at University of Texas Campus; Gunman Dead

[The Yosemite Bear]

wait did someone just copycat Westerfield? (ok spree killer Charles Westerfield had scuicide by cop)

[Darksider]

You're thinking about it all backwards. As an American it's your 2nd Amendment duty to pack your own firearm so the perp won't even think about shooting you, and if he's still dumb enough to make a threatening move you can shoot him first. It's your constitutional right and you must exercise it, or the dirty socialist liberals will win.

IIRC Alyrium is faculty. This retarded bill might allow students to carry handguns on campus, but there's no way in hell any university in America would allow teachers on it's payroll to pack heat. That's just a legal mess waiting to happen.


Hell, do Unis even allow their rent-a-cops to carry guns?

[Ritterin Sophia]

there's no way in hell any university in America would allow teachers on it's payroll to pack heat.

That's exactly what this bill expressly allows, it makes the option to carry a concealed weaponon campus a 'Right' in the State of Arizona, and what a lot of idiots in this thread aren't mentioning is that in order to take advantage of it you have to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon, which is issued by the police and requires the applicant be at least 21 and have completed at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

there's no way in hell any university in America would allow teachers on it's payroll to pack heat.

That's exactly what this bill expressly allows, it makes the option to carry a concealed weaponon campus a 'Right' in the State of Arizona, and what a lot of idiots in this thread aren't mentioning is that in order to take advantage of it you have to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon, which is issued by the police and requires the applicant be at least 21 and have completed at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

Thought he moved to Texas. Oh yeah, and Arizona recently abolished the training and permit requirements for concealed carry . . . so any idiot with a gun can carry it concealed.

[Ritterin Sophia]

there's no way in hell any university in America would allow teachers on it's payroll to pack heat.

That's exactly what this bill expressly allows, it makes the option to carry a concealed weapon on campus a 'Right' in the State of Arizona, and what a lot of idiots in this thread aren't mentioning is that in order to take advantage of it you have to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon, which is issued by the police and requires the applicant be at least 21 and have completed at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

Thought he moved to Texas. Oh yeah, and Arizona recently abolished the training and permit requirements for concealed carry . . . so any idiot with a gun can carry it concealed.

That only applies outside of certain sensitive areas, one such area being school campuses. Arizona still maintains the CWP and it's requirements as having it confers special privileges, this bill adds one such new privilege to those who have carry and conceal permits. So you still need to meet the requirements for and obtain a CWP to carry on campus, not every idiot can just walk onto campus with a gun.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I forgot to include this in my post, but the reason they're not allowed to carry on campus without a license is because of the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, which states:

'(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.


(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—.....

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;'

Ergo Arizona must maintain CWP, if only for that.

[Anguirus]

Unfortunately the "Handguns on camps" bill will now sail through the legislature and undergrads will be able to pack heat....

Excellent.

It's worth noting that when Charles Whitman went on his rampage there in the 1960s; it was the students who had hunting rifles in their car trunks (again, different era) that helped keep Whitman pinned down enough to reduce casualties and provide some help until the cops could arrive in force.

It's also worth noting that on this particular day, students with guns would only have made the situation worse.

The guy was literally shooting at the ground and apparently doing his damnedest to scare people without actually hurting them. There are at least two eyewitness reports in the news of the guy passing within ten feet of someone, looking right at them, and not shooting them.

I don't know what this twisted bastard was thinking, but if a couple students fucking opened up on him (and who could blame them), there would have probably been more injured and dead.

So do our highly atypical, uninformative anecdotes cancel out, or something?

[ShadowDragon8685]

I'm pretty sure Darksider's point was that, whether or not the law made it legal to do so, the university would sooner dismiss any member of it's faculty than allow them to carry a gun on campus. Just like how it's legal to be a member of the KKK, but if a teacher was discovered to be a Klansman they'd be launched out the door and the contents of their desk mailed to them.

A private employer is allowed to set restrictions that government is not, after all. Of course, I imagine that, even if they're no longer allowed to call the cops on students packing heat, they'd make exercising that freedom to come to school armed an instant expulsion offense.

[Shroom Man 777]

What happens if one of my classmates pulls out a gun and starts shooting people, and then he gets shot at by another student, and then maybe somehow hippothetically in all the confusion, someone else comes in and sees him shoot the crazy guy and thinks he is a crazy guy, and then he starts shooting the guy who shot the shooter. Then I think both of them have gone nuts and so I pull out my gun and shoot them both! Then since I'm a jock douche who should be sent to work in the mines, the fatty nerds hate me and then they pull out their guns and shoot me, but their fatty fingers won't fit into their trigger guards (they should've used phasers lol), and then I see these guys suddenly draw their guns, and then I assume they mean shit so like the Wild West I go quickdraw mcgraw and shoot them first! Because, lol, turns out teenager and young adult students may not exactly be level headed and may not react to crisis situations properly and may make terrible mistakes and decisions that might result in horrible incidents (who knew am i rite). Man, imagine a school gone Battle Royale. Are we gonna trust kids who get drunk on spring break and kill themselves in DUI and car crash accidents (they deserve it, and hopefully their organs get harvested), kids who should be sent to work in the mines, to pack heat and act as Judge Judy and executioner? Maybe if the concealed carry permits were given to kids with decent test scores, sure, but to everyone including the idiots? Eh?

[HarrionGreyjoy]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6724.story

...I like the SWAT member with the bazooka. Seriously, what?

Actually, that question could be asked about this entire incident. What a very peculiar way to commit suicide. I'm glad he apparently didn't try to hurt anyone else, I've got friends there, but... automatic weapon? Sixth floor of the library?

And isn't shooting yourself with an assault rifle a bit tricky anyway?

Weirdest gun-related sorta-crime (okay, he's guilty of breaking some locational laws, public disturbance, and vandalism) I can recall hearing of.

[Ritterin Sophia]

...I like the SWAT member with the bazooka. Seriously, what?

Actually, that question could be asked about this entire incident. What a very peculiar way to commit suicide. I'm glad he apparently didn't try to hurt anyone else, I've got friends there, but... automatic weapon? Sixth floor of the library?

And isn't shooting yourself with an assault rifle a bit tricky anyway?

Weirdest gun-related sorta-crime (okay, he's guilty of breaking some locational laws, public disturbance, and vandalism) I can recall hearing of.

That's not a bazooka and there's nothing in the article to indicate that the 'AK-47' was automatic.

When the media says AK-47, they mean civilianized AKMs.

[Broomstick]

There's also the part where NH's population is mostly well-off, well-educated, and progressive; and NH is surrounded by progressive, liberal, relatively anti-gun states and freakin' Canada. Contrast this with another open-carry state with a nearly-identical population to New Hampshire . . . New Mexico, which has two million people to New Hampshire's 1.9. While New Hampshire has a murder rate of 0.8 per 100,000, New Mexico has a murder rate of 8.7 per 100,000. This is in spite of the fact that New Mexico has a fraction of New Hampshire's population density. It is also poor, un-educated, and conservative. It is surrounded by conservative, pro-gun states, and freakin' Mexico.

Uh-huh. And Indiana has 6 million people, some of the loosest gun laws in the nation, is conservative, pro-gun, has tons of poverty and uneducated rabble... and has a murder rate of 5.8 per 100,000.

So all this proves.... what?

If someone pulls out a gun in a lecture theatre then if noone else is armed some people die, the rest flee.

So... how would you feel about being one of the ones dying? Is it somehow OK for some to flee and some to die? You seem awful content about this.

If everyone else is armed, then lets suppose that as soon as the shooter kills the first person they're shot by someone else. How does anyone know if there were one or two shooters? Chances are that whoever shot the first guy is going to be shot by 5 other overenthusiastic gun holders. Then they're almost certainly going to miss and hit someone else and then people start defending themselves and the whole thing devolves into a bloodbath. I'd rather take my chances to run in a crowd from a shooter than to risk a dozen trigger happy idiots protecting me.

Ah, you've subscribed to the notion that holding a gun instantly makes you a killer...

Look, I'd rather there be no guns at all in a lecture hall. I agree, it's not the place for them. But your notion that one shot fired somewhere that might have multiple people with concealed carry permits instantly results in a free-for-all bloodbath is straight out of Hollywood. People aren't going around looking for an excuse to start firing wildly. We had a woman shot at a local grocery by an estranged husband a couple months ago - instead of opening fire on the gunman bystanders dragged the woman behind a vehicle and started administering first aid as the gunman ran off. There were SEVERAL armed people present, but none of them felt compelled to open fire.

I know of another incident where a man was targeted by two thieves - instead of shooting them he knocked one over the head with a piece of pipe and the other ran off. When the police showed up they asked him why he didn't use his gun, which was sitting next to him in his truck right next to the pipe. He said didn't feel a need to, that the pipe would do the job.

Granted these are anecdotes, but you know, even a lot of folks who carry guns really aren't enthused at the notion of shooting another human being. They'll happily let the bad guy run away, or seek some other means to resolve the issue. Reach for the gun as a first strategy is a fantasy from Hollywood westerns more than an actual fact.

Then there was the idiot a few years ago who tried to hold up the local gun shop. Yeah, THAT was brilliant - not only is pretty much everyone in the shop armed, some with multiple weapons, but the store staff have a stock of ammunition on their side of the counter. Oddly enough, no one got hurt. Would-be robber was face down on the floor, hands behind his head when the cops arrived to take him away and other than the fact the robber had pissed his own pants no one and nothing was hurt.

Does that mean I'm opposed to any gun control? No - I think there is a definite need to regulate guns and where they are and aren't permitted, even if I tend to be more permissive than you. That's because I know that holding a gun doesn't make people go insane, and having people licensed to carry guns doesn't mean a bloodbath on every corner. No, actually, our problem is the folks who AREN'T licensed - usually because they're criminal or insane - who get ahold of illegal weapons. Passing more laws won't fix that problem.

Now, do I think guns belong in schools of any sort? No. Well, OK, schools run by a branch of the military, maybe, but they keep strict control over the guns and ammo, don't they. Civilian schools - no, they don't belong there. Now, all we have to do is keep the crazies from bringing them there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

there's no way in hell any university in America would allow teachers on it's payroll to pack heat.

That's exactly what this bill expressly allows, it makes the option to carry a concealed weaponon campus a 'Right' in the State of Arizona, and what a lot of idiots in this thread aren't mentioning is that in order to take advantage of it you have to be licensed to carry a concealed weapon, which is issued by the police and requires the applicant be at least 21 and have completed at least eight hours of firearm safety training.

Thought he moved to Texas. Oh yeah, and Arizona recently abolished the training and permit requirements for concealed carry . . . so any idiot with a gun can carry it concealed.

I am in TX.

Students licensed to carry a concealed handgun will be able to do so on a college campus. The problem is that in TX, the requirements for a concealed carry permit are very very lax. My adviser actually testified before the legislature on this very bill, with my exact same concerns.

The only real restriction is that you cannot be convicted of a felony. Guess what, most school shooters are not felons prior to the shooting, neither are most people who shoot someone in anger or despair in the general case.

lets take a look at TX's firearm murder rate.

5.4 murders per 100 thousand. We have a student body of approximately 20 thousand. On average, 1 on campus murder per year if we permitted people the means by which to commit murder. We have significantly less than that right now when we deny people the means by which to murder.

So all this proves.... what?

That someone needs to run some statistics.

[Kamakazie Sith]

5.4 murders per 100 thousand. We have a student body of approximately 20 thousand. On average, 1 on campus murder per year if we permitted people the means by which to commit murder. We have significantly less than that right now when we deny people the means by which to murder.

Do you have metal detectors at your university because if not...you aren't "denying" anybody. Anyone who is crazy enough to murder a professor over a tongue lashing likely is carrying regardless if it is permitted or not

[Simon_Jester]

5.4 murders per 100 thousand. We have a student body of approximately 20 thousand. On average, 1 on campus murder per year if we permitted people the means by which to commit murder. We have significantly less than that right now when we deny people the means by which to murder.

Do you have metal detectors at your university because if not...you aren't "denying" anybody. Anyone who is crazy enough to murder a professor over a tongue lashing likely is carrying regardless if it is permitted or not

In your experience this is the case?

Unfortunately the "Handguns on camps" bill will now sail through the legislature and undergrads will be able to pack heat....

Excellent.

It's worth noting that when Charles Whitman went on his rampage there in the 1960s; it was the students who had hunting rifles in their car trunks (again, different era) that helped keep Whitman pinned down enough to reduce casualties and provide some help until the cops could arrive in force.

Though hilarity might have ensued had the hail of suppressing fire, say, hit the policemen who moved up onto the observation deck and actually took him out.

Also, do you actually have any data on the frequency of campus shootings (not just high-profile massacres like Whitman's case, but ordinary homicides) back in that era? I mean, college campuses are an environment with a lot of hormone-charged, questionably rational people. It would be kind of pointless to sprinkle a campus liberally with handguns in the hope of reducing the casualties from a random massacre... only to watch three or four jilted boyfriends commit murder-suicides in the next few years.

quote="Broomstick"]

There's also the part where NH's population is mostly well-off, well-educated, and progressive; and NH is surrounded by progressive, liberal, relatively anti-gun states and freakin' Canada. Contrast this with another open-carry state with a nearly-identical population to New Hampshire . . . New Mexico, which has two million people to New Hampshire's 1.9. While New Hampshire has a murder rate of 0.8 per 100,000, New Mexico has a murder rate of 8.7 per 100,000. This is in spite of the fact that New Mexico has a fraction of New Hampshire's population density. It is also poor, un-educated, and conservative. It is surrounded by conservative, pro-gun states, and freakin' Mexico.

Uh-huh. And Indiana has 6 million people, some of the loosest gun laws in the nation, is conservative, pro-gun, has tons of poverty and uneducated rabble... and has a murder rate of 5.8 per 100,000.

So all this proves.... what?[/quote]That social factors have a huge effect on murder rates, and that while some states with permissive gun laws have very low murder rates, others have very high murder rates. Therefore, one cannot simply draw a line saying:

"More gun ownership" -> "Lower murder rates."

It's not that simple. To really do it properly you'd need to pull an Alyrium and run some kind of regression on various social factors and gun ownership, comparing all of them to the murder rate and seeing which ones have the biggest effect. The real problem, of course, is that you need a pretty sophisticated measure of gun ownership. Average guns per person isn't enough; you'd also want to evaluate training requirements, whether the state makes it difficult for exceptionally disturbed individuals to own a gun or not, and so on.

If someone pulls out a gun in a lecture theatre then if noone else is armed some people die, the rest flee.

So... how would you feel about being one of the ones dying? Is it somehow OK for some to flee and some to die? You seem awful content about this.

Since he later says he'll take his chances, I think the answer is "yes," at least insofar as someone who's never been shot at or seriously risked death can have an opinion about being shot at and possibly dying.

If everyone else is armed, then lets suppose that as soon as the shooter kills the first person they're shot by someone else. How does anyone know if there were one or two shooters? Chances are that whoever shot the first guy is going to be shot by 5 other overenthusiastic gun holders. Then they're almost certainly going to miss and hit someone else and then people start defending themselves and the whole thing devolves into a bloodbath. I'd rather take my chances to run in a crowd from a shooter than to risk a dozen trigger happy idiots protecting me.

Ah, you've subscribed to the notion that holding a gun instantly makes you a killer...

Look, I'd rather there be no guns at all in a lecture hall. I agree, it's not the place for them. But your notion that one shot fired somewhere that might have multiple people with concealed carry permits instantly results in a free-for-all bloodbath is straight out of Hollywood. People aren't going around looking for an excuse to start firing wildly. We had a woman shot at a local grocery by an estranged husband a couple months ago - instead of opening fire on the gunman bystanders dragged the woman behind a vehicle and started administering first aid as the gunman ran off. There were SEVERAL armed people present, but none of them felt compelled to open fire.

I know of another incident where a man was targeted by two thieves - instead of shooting them he knocked one over the head with a piece of pipe and the other ran off. When the police showed up they asked him why he didn't use his gun, which was sitting next to him in his truck right next to the pipe. He said didn't feel a need to, that the pipe would do the job.

Granted these are anecdotes, but you know, even a lot of folks who carry guns really aren't enthused at the notion of shooting another human being. They'll happily let the bad guy run away, or seek some other means to resolve the issue. Reach for the gun as a first strategy is a fantasy from Hollywood westerns more than an actual fact.

The problem here, I think, is that spree shooters are a different kind of threat than other kinds of murderers, because they're standing their ground and shooting people for the hell of it, not looking to grab some loot or take revenge on a specific person.

A pair of random thieves engaged in strongarm tactics may be deterred if their planned victim suddenly grabs a club and knocks one of them over the head; if the victim knows that then I can totally understand why he wouldn't go for a gun. A man who shoots his estranged wife and runs is leaving; he's not hanging around to start a firefight, and it's no surprise that armed men in the crowd don't shoot him when he's running away. Man robs a gun store, suddenly he's got half a dozen firearms pointed at him, and again it's no wonder he goes quietly, or that the customers will let him: he isn't shooting, no firefight is going on.

But when Lunatic #53 comes striding into a lecture hall and starts spraying bullets around, then I'd think that's a little different. At that point, not only are shots already being fired (unlike the first and third anecdotes you present), but the shooter is hanging around and posing a direct threat to everyone in the area (unlike the second anecdote).

That makes return fire, and possibly panicked return fire, more likely.

The entire notion that arming students would help in case of a school shooting is based on the premise that the students will shoot back in that situation. Once that premise is accepted, the risk of a free-for-all firefight isn't exactly out of the question, because you'll have a large number of uncoordinated (and quite possibly undertrained) potential shooters, many of whom may not be entirely clear on who fired the first shot or who the threat is.

If they shoot at all, I'd be a bit worried about them shooting the wrong person too. If they don't shoot, then arming them won't change anything.

Also, I think Alyrium's worry is legitimate: that he as an authority figure on campus may have more to fear from armed students than he would from the spree shooters the weapons were handed out to counter.

[Kamakazie Sith]

]In your experience this is the case?

To clarify. What I mean is anyone that is crazy enough to murder their professor and wants to carry a firearm will not be deterred by a fearsome "No Weapons Allowed" sign. I didn't mean that all people who are crazy enough to murder their professors are in fact armed.

In my experience. People who are capable of violent murder over petty things don't care what anyone has to say. They are the people that when I tell them to sit down they tell me "no". So, I end up making them sit down.

What I'm getting at is anyone that is willing to murder in cold blood over words is not going to listen to people if they don't want to.

[Steel]

So... how would you feel about being one of the ones dying? Is it somehow OK for some to flee and some to die? You seem awful content about this.

I would obviously not feel good. However I think it is far, far better for there to be an incredibly low risk of a shooting spree that will result in some deaths in a society where weapons are not common, than the alternative where there is a constant level of shootings in addition to shooting sprees which still result in deaths.

Ah, you've subscribed to the notion that holding a gun instantly makes you a killer...

Absolutely not, given that I was referring to someone who had just shot someone else dead. The definition.

Your other examples are not at all comparable to a gunman shooting indiscriminately in a public place.

Does nobody feel that if it is necessary to carry a gun in a university it is an indication your society has failed? How could it be acceptable that there is a significant risk of being killed and the only way to avoid it was to use lethal force yourself?

[Alyrium Denryle]

5.4 murders per 100 thousand. We have a student body of approximately 20 thousand. On average, 1 on campus murder per year if we permitted people the means by which to commit murder. We have significantly less than that right now when we deny people the means by which to murder.

Do you have metal detectors at your university because if not...you aren't "denying" anybody. Anyone who is crazy enough to murder a professor over a tongue lashing likely is carrying regardless if it is permitted or not

Statutory denial is generally enough to prevent the vast majority of people from carrying a gun. I will also disagree with your assessment. However, I shall run the necessary stats to prove it.

I collected data on the annual gun deaths per hundred thousand, and performed an Analysis of Covariance using Concealed Carry laws as a proxy for the general permissiveness of a state's gun laws. Specifically I used unmodified Shall Issue laws vs May issue or Right Denied. I used population and GINI as covariates.

The analysis explained 31.5% of the variance in gun laws, and all terms were significant. Population size was significant at .035, GINI was significant at <.001 and permissiveness of gun laws was significant at .008

[Broomstick]

Does nobody feel that if it is necessary to carry a gun in a university it is an indication your society has failed?

I would like to reiterate that I stated very plainly that school is NOT a place for guns. Even in gun-happy America a lot of otherwise pro-gun people do not want guns in schools. I think the reasons for that have been clearly given by others in this thread.

How could it be acceptable that there is a significant risk of being killed and the only way to avoid it was to use lethal force yourself?

It's not acceptable, of course, but some people feel that it is less acceptable to deny potential victims what they view as a valid means of self-defense.

[Broomstick]

I collected data on the annual gun deaths per hundred thousand, and performed an Analysis of Covariance using Concealed Carry laws as a proxy for the general permissiveness of a state's gun laws. Specifically I used unmodified Shall Issue laws vs May issue or Right Denied. I used population and GINI as covariates.

The analysis explained 31.5% of the variance in gun laws, and all terms were significant. Population size was significant at .035, GINI was significant at <.001 and permissiveness of gun laws was significant at .008

I wish I actually understood what you just said, because I think it's significant information. While it may require you to use more words of fewer syllables, and probably also fewer numbers, could you perhaps explain that in American dialect for the non-statistically educated?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Statutory denial is generally enough to prevent the vast majority of people from carrying a gun. I will also disagree with your assessment. However, I shall run the necessary stats to prove it.

I'm not talking about the vast majority of people. I'm talking about the person you described as willing to murder his professor over a lecture, failing grade, etc. That person to me is not stable, and does not care about regulation since murder is pretty much the most greivious crime you can commit and when you compare it to illegally carrying a firearm the difference is significant.

I collected data on the annual gun deaths per hundred thousand, and performed an Analysis of Covariance using Concealed Carry laws as a proxy for the general permissiveness of a state's gun laws. Specifically I used unmodified Shall Issue laws vs May issue or Right Denied. I used population and GINI as covariates.

The analysis explained 31.5% of the variance in gun laws, and all terms were significant. Population size was significant at .035, GINI was significant at <.001 and permissiveness of gun laws was significant at .008

Your stats don't take into account unstable variables, such as a person who would murder someone over a lecture. Do you disagree that such a person is unstable?

Also, to clarify. I agree that more study is needed, and I haven't decided whether allowing firearms on university campus is the right thing to do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I collected data on the annual gun deaths per hundred thousand, and performed an Analysis of Covariance using Concealed Carry laws as a proxy for the general permissiveness of a state's gun laws. Specifically I used unmodified Shall Issue laws vs May issue or Right Denied. I used population and GINI as covariates.

The analysis explained 31.5% of the variance in gun laws, and all terms were significant. Population size was significant at .035, GINI was significant at <.001 and permissiveness of gun laws was significant at .008

I wish I actually understood what you just said, because I think it's significant information. While it may require you to use more words of fewer syllables, and probably also fewer numbers, could you perhaps explain that in American dialect for the non-statistically educated?

Basically, the issue of gun violence is a multi-faceted problem. Comparing one state to another is absolutely useless, what actually needs to be done is to compare the result policies such as gun control while statistically controlling for other variables. What an Analysis of Covariance does is exactly that. It looks at the effects of a categorical variable (namely the CCW laws) on the outcome, firearm deaths. It also controls for the effect of a normally distributed continuous variable such as population or GINI (an index of income inequality) on your outcome variable.

In this case, the combination of these factors explained 31% (though a subsequent analysis I just ran on log transformed population explained 36%) of the variation in firearm related deaths. I can also run this same regression for armed robbery and forcible rape.

Statistical significance is the probability that you have rejected the null hypothesis(that your independent variables will have no effect) in error. The standard convention is .05. A five percent chance that your independent variables have no effect. Anything lower than that and you have increasing certainty that your independent variables are actually doing something to your dependent variable.

What my analysis indicates is that population, income distribution, and gun laws all impact the rate of firearm deaths, in this case, more permissive gun laws lead to more firearm related deaths. Also, uneven income distribution and high population also lead to more gun related deaths.

Your stats don't take into account unstable variables, such as a person who would murder someone over a lecture. Do you disagree that such a person is unstable?

They probably are, but you are falsely equivocating different types of instability.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They probably are, but you are falsely equivocating different types of instability.

In what way? I've only spoken about one type of instability. I admit that instability can be manifested from multiple causes, but the result is the same.

[Simon_Jester]

]In your experience this is the case?

To clarify. What I mean is anyone that is crazy enough to murder their professor and wants to carry a firearm will not be deterred by a fearsome "No Weapons Allowed" sign. I didn't mean that all people who are crazy enough to murder their professors are in fact armed.

In my experience. People who are capable of violent murder over petty things don't care what anyone has to say. They are the people that when I tell them to sit down they tell me "no". So, I end up making them sit down.

What I'm getting at is anyone that is willing to murder in cold blood over words is not going to listen to people if they don't want to.

I think part of Alyrium's concern is that when he's dealing with a student who faces expulsion because he's been caught cheating, it isn't strictly "cold blood." That it is actually possible for such a student to react aggressively as a crime of passion, not because they actually think it will somehow help to shoot the TA who caught them cheating.

Since I have no experience with the kind of students Alyrium deals with, and not nearly enough experience with the distinction between "hot" and "cold" blood as precisely as you would, I can't say.

Basically, the issue of gun violence is a multi-faceted problem. Comparing one state to another is absolutely useless, what actually needs to be done is to compare the result policies such as gun control while statistically controlling for other variables. What an Analysis of Covariance does is exactly that. It looks at the effects of a categorical variable (namely the CCW laws) on the outcome, firearm deaths. It also controls for the effect of a normally distributed continuous variable such as population or GINI (an index of income inequality) on your outcome variable.

If by normally distributed you mean a Gaussian curve, I'm pretty sure the distribution of GINI coefficients and population figures for the states don't fit a Gaussian.

You took that into account, I assume? I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with the technique, because that kind of multivariable analysis of large datasets isn't as common in physics as in biology. Also because even by physics standards I'm not that great at statistics.

Statistical significance is the probability that you have rejected the null hypothesis(that your independent variables will have no effect) in error. The standard convention is .05. A five percent chance that your independent variables have no effect. Anything lower than that and you have increasing certainty that your independent variables are actually doing something to your dependent variable.

What my analysis indicates is that population, income distribution, and gun laws all impact the rate of firearm deaths, in this case, more permissive gun laws lead to more firearm related deaths. Also, uneven income distribution and high population also lead to more gun related deaths.

Can you break up the variables and figure out which ones are responsible for how much of the variance?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If by normally distributed you mean a Gaussian curve, I'm pretty sure the distribution of GINI coefficients and population figures for the states don't fit a Gaussian.

I ran, as part of the ANOVA, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test on both variables. GINI was normaly distributed. Population was not, so I log-transformed it and re-tested. It came out nice and normal. Subsequent runs on the log-transformed data did not appreciably change the outcome, just change the fit slightly.