Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 December 15

= December 15 =

Difference between two types of companies
What's the difference between companies who do not have any source of income besides donations, and companies that do have income besides donations (i.e. YMCA memberships), but which do not use that money to pay its employees or owners? Buggie111 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no formal designation. A non-profit does not have owners, but those who are in control can be paid as staff, but that is rarely done. There are some exceptions - the president of the NRA has almost a million dollar salary (and does not contribute to the NRA). Apteva (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you asking how they are different legally, or how they are named, that may depend on the jurisdiction. In particular, Apteva's statement that "A non-profit does not have owners" is arguably not true in the UK. See Company limited by guarantee. --ColinFine (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A company limited by guarantee has members, rather than owners. It will be written into the governing documents that they have no entitlement to a share of profits. They get a vote at the AGM, but that's about it - I'm not sure that can be considered to have any value, so it can't really be considered a possession. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Most non-profits have several income streams - diversifying your income makes it more reliable. In addition to membership fees, they might hold jumble sales, sell goods or services connected with their charitable purpose (the Red Cross makes money from first aid courses, for example). Few charities only have donations for income. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Non profit is generally used as a term for tax status, although states may have specific designations for not-for profit. However they're still corporations. For example, United Way Worldwide is incorporated in New York as a "domestic not-for-profit corporation." Shadowjams (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal Union of the Pacific Nations
Is this video for real? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Atooi is a micronation type of thing being asserted by some Native Hawaiians. It is not, in fact, "a UN recognized Polynesian Sovereign Nation" as they claim; amusingly enough they managed to register as an NGO but that's as far as their recognition goes. The Kingdom of Atooi is not officially recognized by any sovereign states and their authority is rejected by US courts. Dncsky (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am more surprised by the charade of monarchs and royals they assembled from all of Oceania.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What's a UGO? I couldn't find anything on that page that explained, and it's not linked at Ugo.  Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, it's supposed to be NGO. Sorry about the confusion, my apologies.Dncsky (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay; no problem. I just guessed it to be something like "Unrecognised Governmental Organisation", although that begged the question of how something could get registered as being unrecognised.  Nyttend (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How did they get all those Polynesian royals to come to a micronation?  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Aid money must be spent on Made in USA goods
US gives military aid to Israel with the attached stipulation that at least 75% of the aid must be spent on US made military equiment. My question is, is the 75% part actually true? If so, which law contained this stipulation? I realize this is a controversial topic but please don't soapbox; I'm just looking for a single link to the relevant statute.Dncsky (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The US policy of tied aid to foreign countries is fairly well known and when it comes to developmental and other such assistance to developing countries at least, fairly controversial (as atested in both sources). However I don't really get what you mean 'law' or 'statute', aid is mostly a matter of international treaties and agreements. Unless there is something in US law which either forbids or requires such stipulations then the 'law' and 'statutes' are irrelevant, anyone who accepts such aid will be bound by whatever agreement or treaty they signed as part of accepting the aid and if they refuse to abide by such agreements they may find future aid cut off or other consequences. Nil Einne (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I had the mistaken impression that it was a house bill that doled out "X amount of money for X nation" and I was trying to track down said bill. It honestly never occurred to me that it could've been a treaty; must've been a brainfart. I'm just trying to track down the exact text that said the "75%" thing. Are these treaties and/or agreements public?Dncsky (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not saying there is no statutory requirement, I'm simply saying there is no reason why there has to be. As per below, this isn't really what we're talking about since we're referring to military aid but gives an an example of how up to recently, the United States Agency for International Development would only spend money on US manufacturers even though a statutory requirement was removed in 1993. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, my misunderstanding then. I'm just trying to win an internet argument here and I'm looking for an authoritative source to quote the "75%" number from. Lots have articles contain that figure but I'm looking for the actual law or treaty.Dncsky (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW our article Israel–United States military relations suggests Israel is actually unique here, normal US military aid which appears to be what we're talking about must entirely be spent with US manufacturers. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, normally it's 100%, but for Israel it's 75%, which gives me more hope of tracking down that number.Dncsky (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I may have found (one version of) it:
 * ...That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $406,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Jordan and not less than $1,000,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed to by the United States and Israel, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $263,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development:...
 * 1-$263,000,000/$1,000,000,000 roughly equals to 75%. Some other law, which I'm still looking for, stipulates that all US aid money must be spent on US-made goods. The "shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services" rider basically allows 26.3% of the fund to be spent on Israeli-made equipment. I don't read legalese so good so someone please tell me if this interpretation is in the right ballpark or not. Dncsky (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any picture of Adam Lanza?
Unlike other shootings, police has not yet released a picture of the gunman. I think that the picture of the young man in sunglasses is his older brother Ryan. Keeeith (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, check google images. There was an earlier confusion between him and his brother, but his real picture is out there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Luther
Luther presented a theology that everyone interprets the text as he chooses. How did he responded to those who claimed that he had not read right the Scripture? And where can I read more about it? --84.110.173.27 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your question assumes there is some authority (like the Pope) whose interpretation is better. Luther rejected that idea.  Some people will get the scriptures right, and others will get it wrong, whether they are popes or not.  StuRat (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See False premise and Loaded question. You've started your question with a statement which is not itself valid.  Luther's theology does not state that everyone interprets the text of the Bible as he chooses.  Theology of Martin Luther is probably something you should familiarize yourself with before you ask questions based on incorrect assumptions.  The principle you seem to be misunderstanding is sola scriptura, which only states that the Word of God (being the Bible) is supreme, and that the Bible does not require any external texts or authority to be understood correctly.  That doesn't mean that anyone can interpret the Bible any way they wish, that's a facile and incorrect understanding of sola scriptura.  There are correct and incorrect ways to understand what is in the Bible; but sola scriptura states that you don't need to use external texts or authority to elucidate the correct understanding; the Bible contains within itself enough to be understood correctly.  -- Jayron  32  18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That philosophy seems questionable to me. The Bible directly contradicts itself in many places, so different people will take different parts of it as gospel, and ignore the rest.  There is no one universal way to read it, whether you're a pope or not.  StuRat (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point: The Pope doesn't have a special position in understanding the Bible. The issue is not whether or not the Bible can be perfectly understood (it can't, every human is fallible, and so will make errors in their understanding), but whether the Bible can be sufficiently understood.  Sola scriptura only says that no other writing or doctrine can correct the Bible; that the Bible itself is 100% correct and complete.  It doesn't say that I can read the Bible and thus be 100% correct in understanding it, but that isn't the fault of the Bible.  -- Jayron  32  18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Luther was quite as liberal as you seem to claim. He believed that certain authorities were not following the scripture.  His response was "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.".  Perhaps someone else can recommend some reading for you.    D b f i r s   18:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody remember the shooting in Canada where the gunman had a mohawk haircut?
Thank you if you know, I am looking for it. Keeeith (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Dawson College shooting? ---Sluzzelin talk  18:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's it!, thank you!. Keeeith (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this info Keeith. I didn't know about this shooting perpetrated by a gunman with a mohawk haircut. I didn't even know that shootings also take place outside the US, or that gunmen sometimes have mohawk haircuts.


 * Many of the worst shootings were outside the US, like the Port Arthur massacre (Australia). StuRat (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * List of rampage killers is useful for these sorts of comparisons. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  20:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's amazing Sluzzelin, you are as good as google (keywords: shooting canada gunman mohawk haircut). OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who controls the grounds of the U.S. Capitol Building?
The following appears in the article about the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting:


 * [Obama] ordered flags to be flown at half-staff at the White House and other US federal government facilities worldwide in respect for the victims. Speaker of the House John Boehner ordered flags be flown at half-staff at the United States Capitol as well.

I've looked through the articles on United States Capitol and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and can't find any indication of the answer: why and how, under what constitutional authority, does the Speaker hold this sort of sovereignty over the Capitol Building, while the President controls all other federal facilities? Kane5187 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a simple case of separation of powers? OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure that's the principle behind it, but I'm curious to see if there's anything (and there may not be) about when it was administratively or judicially determined that the physical property of the Capitol is in the Speaker's domain (keeping in mind that the Capitol building includes the Senate, too, of which the Speaker is not a member). Not much addressed here... Kane5187 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise, there's nothing about Chief Justice Roberts making a half-mast declaration for the Supreme Court building - would he, or the President make that call? Kane5187 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See below: the Supreme Court lies on the Capitol Complex, so in theory the decision would have been the same one that Boehner made. The Supreme Court for many years met in the Capitol building itself, before its own building was constructed elsewhere on the grounds.  -- Jayron  32  20:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The United States Capitol Complex is under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol, which is itself under the jurisdiction of the Congress. So only Congress has the power to formally declare things like lowering the staffs of the flags on the Capitol Complex.  That raises the question of why Boehner has precedence over his Senatorial equivalent.  The best answer I can find is that his Senatorial equivalent is Joe Biden, who is Vice President of the United States and thus, by that role, also President of the Senate.  The VP is a member of the Executive Branch, and NOT himself a legislator.  Second-in-command at the Senate is the President pro tempore of the United States Senate (Daniel Inouye) who ranks behind the Speaker in both the United States presidential line of succession and the United States order of precedence, neither of which I suppose has any official sway here, except to note that there seems to be some sense that the highest ranking representative (the Speaker) outranks the highest ranking Senator (the President pro tempore) in several places, and so may get to be the one who gets to make the decisions on matters like this.  -- Jayron  32  20:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent answer - thank you! Kane5187 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The United States Flag Code article indicates that half-staff orders are the prerogative of the President. But I can't find that in the United States Flag Code itself. --jpgordon:==( o ) 07:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: Daniel Inouye is no longer the President pro tempore, or anything else. He's gone to the great congress in the sky.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

amphigory
What means A? From its context it is term of poetic or literary discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Pearlman(1933) (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nonsense verse: . StuRat (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Volcán de Agua name
Regarding Volcán de Agua, as to the origin of the name, I didn't see anything in the article as to how the volcano got associated with water, but I did read in the Guatemala book of the National Geographic Countries of the World series for children "The Maya-the country's native people-called one of the volcanoes in their empire Guhatezmalha, or 'Mountain That Vomits Water.'" How could a volcano have gotten a reputation for vomiting water? According to the linked article, it is a stratovolcano, which spews magma, which is easily discernible from water. 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From the article: "As the lahar produced a destructive flood of water, this prompted the modern name "Volcán de Agua" meaning "Volcano of Water", in contrast to the nearby "Volcán de Fuego" or "Volcano of Fire". " OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, kind of like when trying to find something at the supermarket, I can make things be right in front of me by making myself a fool by asking. If I hadn't made myself a fool, it wouldn't have been right there :) 67.163.109.173 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See lahar and a picture of the result in one case File:Armero aftermath Marso.jpg. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Royal numbering
I've noticed an interesting discrepancy in royal numbering. Some rulers, like Paul I of Russia, are called "the first" when they are the only one of their name to rule; others, like John of England, are not. I understand that it is the wish of some to be called "the first" (e.g. John Paul I), but I am unsure as to whether Paul or other "first" monarchs demanded it, as well. dci &#124;  TALK   22:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Queen Elizabeth was just plain Elizabeth until Elizabeth II came along. King John of England was the first, last and only King John of England. The key question, assuming there was never actually a Paul II of Russia, was when did they start calling him Paul I? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It comes down to tradition and prerogative. It is worth noting that British Monarchs currently base their numbering from the Norman Conquest and use the English, not Scottish, line for their numbering, so you get some quirks like Edward VIII of the United Kingdom actually being the tenth king Edward (Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor are not counted).  You also have weirdness like the current King of Sweden, who is officially Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, nominally the 16th Charles/Carl of Sweden, but really only the ninth King of that name; the first Charles was retroactively numbered Charles VII.  Some countries number lone monarchs as "The first", like Russia and Albania (Zog I prefered the numeral despite being the only one).  Others do not.  -- Jayron  32  23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen "Paul I" frequently. He's not the only one; I own a (very poor condition) coin inscribed "Umberto I, Re d'Italia", and of course nobody knew for sure that there was going to be an Umberto II.  Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This matter is discussed at Monarchical ordinal.
 * Re the United Kingdom: It is no longer the case that "British Monarchs ... use the English, not Scottish, line for their numbering", Jayron. From Monarchical ordinal:
 * In order to avoid controversy, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used. So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Robert would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Robert to reign in England.
 * This policy was adopted before QEII acceded to the throne in 1952, and the choice of "Elizabeth II" was in accordance with the policy. The Scottish people who objected to her title, and considered she should be regarded as "Elizabeth I" in Scotland, were acting in ignorance of the policy change.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for the clarification Jack!  -- Jayron  32  00:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that that's out of the way, indulge me while I amuse myself. What the UK does about the titles of its monarchs is its business alone.  Its decisions don't apply as of right to any of the other Commonwealth realms.  If an overseas realm wants to emulate British practice in some respect, that is its prerogative.  My understanding of the Statute of Westminster is that the 16 nations must all have the same monarch and the same rules of succession at any given moment, but there's nothing to say they can't give the monarch different titles.  They do anyway.  See List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II.  The Queen's formal title in New Zealand is:
 * "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith",
 * but in Papua New Guinea is:
 * "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth".
 * Quite different already. I don't think there's any reason, technically, why they couldn't take these differences further, and have her known as Gertrude IX in one country, Sandra XIII in another, Felicity III in another, and Bronwyn IV in yet another.  They probably wouldn't do this in practice, though. (lol)  But this admitted absurdity just shows up what little freedom the Queen actually has.  We common people take for granted that we have the right to change our names whenever we like, but the Queen has no such power.  Her choice of name is subject to the approval of the government.  When her father died, had she advised she wished to be known as Mary III in honour of her grandmother (Mary being the third of her given names), her Prime Minister could have said "No, Ma'am, with respect, I'd prefer you to be known as Elizabeth II", and she would have had to comply.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the Queen "having no such power". See the article "Mountbatten-Windsor" and this link regarding her family name. Gabbe (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Those are all about her and her family's surname, whereas I'm talking about her regnal name.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada and Germany automobile safety testing agreement
From BMW_M3: "In 1994 agreements existed between Canada and several countries in Europe which allowed any car authorized in one participating country to legally be sold in any of the others.". Is this actually true? It's tagged as citation needed and there's no associated references. Then again such an agreement does make sense, seeing as how most developed countries have essentially the same set of crash testing rules and there's no point in duplicating the same tests. Dncsky (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that German cars need to pass a battery of crash tests to be sold in the US. Some time ago that proved to be quite embarrassing for some German manufacturers, since even their luxury models couldn't pass them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go ahead and strike out that erroneous assumption of mine. BTW, do you remember the model of the luxury vehicle that you're talking about?Dncsky (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Connecticut shooting
I understand that Adam Lanza killed his mother at their residence and he then drove the car to Sandy Hook, but the article fails to explain why Ryan Lanza was there too. Why was he there? did he drive with his brother? is he an accomplice? what was he doing there? Keeeith (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From a perfunctory reading of the case, Adam Lanza had some form of ID of his brother on him when he died, therefore the confusion. If you want a more reliable version, you'll have to wait until the dust settles down. There are just too many people talking about it and just based on a handful of facts, some of them very dubious. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Maybe Ryan Lanza wasn't "there", at the school, but was easy to find. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen in the media, Ryan Lanza seems to have been at work in Hoboken, NJ at the time of the shooting. AnonMoos (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keeith, why aren't you raising this question at the appropriate talk page: Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  00:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because that is not the appropriate talk page. That is for discussion of improvements to the article, and this is a question on facts requiring reference, hence it is in the proper place.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However it's the sort of question that should be answered in the article. And in fact it was, right in the WP:LEDE with references. In such a case, suggesting a living person was an accomplice with absolutely no evidence and when our article (and hundreds of other news sources) already explain any old confusion, is an incredibly bad idea whether her on the RD or elsewhere, and not what the RD is for at all. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer is that Ryan was not there. He was at work, in New York City. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

More guns?
Is there any evidence to support the view that more guns, including concealed weapons, will help prevent incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Astronaut (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * More/less guns, shooting video-games, access to affordable mental health, violent films: these are all topics for discussion that arise again and again after any spree shooting, but are not to be discussed here on the RD. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not an inappropriate query, the asker's just curious as to the existence of sources regarding that view. He's not pressing any inflammatory dialogue.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right that the question could have an appropriate answer, but such questions tend to lead to a big discussion here. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I get your point. Perhaps this would be best addressed at the particular user's talk page, in case anyone knows the answer; that way unhelpful or partisan remarks can be avoided here.   dci  &#124;  TALK   00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That, or everyone could just agree to abide by the reference desk guidelines. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you DCI2026. I deliberately asked for evidence in support of the view, not a discussion. I expect links to sources such as news reports and scholarly papers and so on, not a free-flowing debate on the pros and cons of gun control - something that is adaquately covered by articles such as Gun politics in the United States but does not answer my qustion. Astronaut (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose John Lott might be of some interest to you; I am not well-versed in these matters, but his work seems to support a more-guns viewpoint.  dci  &#124;  TALK   00:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this paper; Multiple Victim Public Shootings] written by John Lott in 1996 and revised in 2000, in which he presents the evidence to support his case. I'm having less luck with the counter-argument. Alansplodge (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go; White Paper: The Case for Gun Policy Reforms (October 2012) from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Alansplodge (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Two of the most cited examples of CCW holders stopping mass shootings are Pearl High School shooting and Appalachian School of Law shooting. In both examples there were indeed legal gun owners on the scene. Some people claim that those legal gun owners stopped the bloodshed and thus CCW is good defense against mass shootings. However the truth is that in both cases the rouge shooter was subdued physically and the CCW wasn't even fired. AFAIK no mass shooter was ever incapacitated by a CCW holder. Though arguably all the civilians returning fire at Charles Whitman could've had a suppression effect on him. Dncsky (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To get a balanced view, you should also look for evidence that more guns lead to additional incidents. Thus, it's possible that more guns may increase the number, but decrease the severity, of such incidents. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * How so? About the severity.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the theory is that if innocent people at a shooting have concealed weapons, they can kill the shooter before he kills too many people. It works in some western movies and cop shows, maybe. Of course, if any of those people with the right to carry concealed weapons have a brain snap at any time, there's just another shooting. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also the possibility that the police just arriving on the scene will confuse the armed vigilantes with the shooter. Multiple groups of armed vigilantes could also misidentify each other as the shooter. Dncsky (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be a mark of a sick society that people feel the need to carry weapons just in case they happen to be close to where the next shooting spree occurs, and they might be able to help out? Whatever their positive intention may be, aren't they accepting that these events have become commonplace, to the point where they cannot trust their law enforcement authorities anymore and feel the need to take the law into their own hands?  What has gone so terribly wrong?  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea of the people solving their own problems, versus waiting for "authorities", is a very old one. Police departments only go back a couple centuries.  Before that, it was up to the citizens of a community to either arrest or kill anyone who committed a crime.  And concepts like a citizen's arrest still exist in many places, as does the concept of a "well regulated citizen militia" to defend against internal and external threats. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Harking back to what obtained a couple of centuries ago will get you into very serious hot water. How about a leg amputation without any anaesthetic, Stu?
 * What I mean is that, if you see someone on a shooting spree in some public place, the default thought has never been "Oh, I'll just pull out the loaded gun that I always carry around with me for use in exactly this type of situation, and shoot the fucker". Are you saying that's the way it should be?  "People solving their own problems", indeed.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  05:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you're asking my opinion, then, while I expect that having everyone pack a gun would limit deaths in (rare) situations like this, it would also dramatically increase shooting deaths overall. If I was convinced that more guns would reduce deaths, then I would be all in favor of those citizens in good mental health, without a criminal record, packing guns, yes.  The police can't be everywhere at once. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like double-speak to me. From your first sentence, I get that you believe people should not generally be carrying guns around, because the increased deaths would far outweigh any lives saved.  But then you talk about what you would be in favour of if you had a different opinion to what you just said - except, you don't have that opinion, so why talk about it?  Or, am I missing something? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm saying I object to your attitude that "somebody else should solve our problems for us" (in this case, the police), although I don't support the idea of arming everyone. To give a different example, whenever I see an incorrect label at the grocery store, I rip it right off the shelf, and/or cross out the incorrect info, and write in the correct info.  If I waited in line to complain to somebody, I expect they would ignore me entirely. StuRat (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you're objecting to something I never said or wrote or thought, and I object to your use of quote marks in your depiction of my alleged attitude. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, my apologies if I misread your comments. StuRat (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Having provided a couple of "links to sources such as... scholarly papers", I have taken the liberty of putting a "resolved" tag at the end of the thread. I think it's wise to curtail the discussion here, unless there are other germane external sources that editors would like to add. Alansplodge (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alan. The sources are just what I was looking for.  The question is indeed resolved.  Astronaut (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)