4 ms·

Behind the Tower: New Histories of the UT Tower Shootings

22 points by benbreen 10y ago

slededit 10y ago
These essays are really well presented and I learned some things I didn't know before. However anyone who's written a college essay will recognize the telltale academic verbosity which obscures a lot of the content. I especially recommend: Armed Civilians and the UT Tower Tragedy [1] [1] http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-tower-tragedy http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-tower-t...
- hga 10y ago
  I'm not at all impressed by the account, especially its puerile agenda, "obscures a lot of the content" indeed, of trying to paint the armed civilians and their actions in any bad light the author could dredge up, and one wonders if he has ever read anything about "modern" combat or the eternal fog of war. It's not like the concept of supressive fire is at all new, think of the effect of our arming our troops with semi-auto rifles and carbines in WWII; Wikipedia has an account who's details I can't vouch for but that goes into the whole fire and movement doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tactics#Squad_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tactics#Squad_tactics and covers German and British versions as well (and before that, the clip fed bolt action rifle, exemplified by the Mauser 1898, started having profound effects on infantry tactics, although it's been overshadowed by the development and deployment of machine guns). Also, either out of ignorance or more of his demonstrated malice, which in this context is all but unforgivable, it starts with mentioning the controversy over the law that's going to force UTAustin to allow students to carry concealed (which is pretty ahistorical, seeing as how states like Colorado have had such laws for years without major incidents), but doesn't mention how back in those days dorms had armories, and some of those armed civilians providing supressive fire were students who retrieved their rifles from their dorm's armory.
  - arcanus 10y ago
    > it starts with mentioning the controversy over the law that's going to force UTAustin to allow students to carry concealed but doesn't mention how back in those days dorms had armories, and some of those armed civilians providing supressive fire were students who retrieved their rifles from their dorm's armory. It also neglects to mention that under the new law, students would have to be licensed and therefore over 21 years of age-- e.g. only seniors. All serious studies indicate it will be an absolutely tiny fraction of the student body: "A review of student demographics at five large public universities and gun license statistics show it’s likely less than 2 percent of students who could carry a gun on campus." (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150314-few-students-would-be-likely-to-carry-guns-in-texas.ece http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150314-f... ) Furthermore, concealed handgun holders are less likely to commit a felony than the ambient population, or the police: https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRate... I agree the account is far too anecdotal to make any meaningful statements. That having been said, having looked at the statistics, I'm not convinced states with concealed handgun laws are any more or less safe. I think the data is too noisy. It certainly is not driving safety, nor is it reducing it (e.g. a 2nd order effect). As I lean libertarian, that means I tend to favor CHLs.

22 points by benbreen 10y ago

These essays are really well presented and I learned some things I didn't know before. However anyone who's written a college essay will recognize the telltale academic verbosity which obscures a lot of the content. I especially recommend: Armed Civilians and the UT Tower Tragedy [1] [1] http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-tower-tragedy http://behindthetower.org/armed-civilians-and-the-ut-tower-t...

hga 10y ago
I'm not at all impressed by the account, especially its puerile agenda, "obscures a lot of the content" indeed, of trying to paint the armed civilians and their actions in any bad light the author could dredge up, and one wonders if he has ever read anything about "modern" combat or the eternal fog of war. It's not like the concept of supressive fire is at all new, think of the effect of our arming our troops with semi-auto rifles and carbines in WWII; Wikipedia has an account who's details I can't vouch for but that goes into the whole fire and movement doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tactics#Squad_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tactics#Squad_tactics and covers German and British versions as well (and before that, the clip fed bolt action rifle, exemplified by the Mauser 1898, started having profound effects on infantry tactics, although it's been overshadowed by the development and deployment of machine guns). Also, either out of ignorance or more of his demonstrated malice, which in this context is all but unforgivable, it starts with mentioning the controversy over the law that's going to force UTAustin to allow students to carry concealed (which is pretty ahistorical, seeing as how states like Colorado have had such laws for years without major incidents), but doesn't mention how back in those days dorms had armories, and some of those armed civilians providing supressive fire were students who retrieved their rifles from their dorm's armory.
- arcanus 10y ago
  > it starts with mentioning the controversy over the law that's going to force UTAustin to allow students to carry concealed but doesn't mention how back in those days dorms had armories, and some of those armed civilians providing supressive fire were students who retrieved their rifles from their dorm's armory. It also neglects to mention that under the new law, students would have to be licensed and therefore over 21 years of age-- e.g. only seniors. All serious studies indicate it will be an absolutely tiny fraction of the student body: "A review of student demographics at five large public universities and gun license statistics show it’s likely less than 2 percent of students who could carry a gun on campus." (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150314-few-students-would-be-likely-to-carry-guns-in-texas.ece http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150314-f... ) Furthermore, concealed handgun holders are less likely to commit a felony than the ambient population, or the police: https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRate... I agree the account is far too anecdotal to make any meaningful statements. That having been said, having looked at the statistics, I'm not convinced states with concealed handgun laws are any more or less safe. I think the data is too noisy. It certainly is not driving safety, nor is it reducing it (e.g. a 2nd order effect). As I lean libertarian, that means I tend to favor CHLs.