Concealed Handguns on College Campuses

[vortexring 0]

Hey John, I'm actually in the States at the moment - imagine my surprise whilst watching the news to hear the opinion of a 'School Shooting Expert.'

A school shooting expert. I can't quite find the words to describe how I feel about this. It's pretty heart breaking to try and comprehend the murder of 32 students. And then there is a 'school shootings expert' on scene to give his opinion.......

This event, and the many similiar in the past, is a primary reason to explain why you should end legal gun ownership. It's just not worth it.

I firmly believe such new laws would help prevent and reduce the frequency of such incidents. And I don't need statistics - just common sense.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

\

Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms.

Yup...that legally obtained gun warped his mind and MADE him do it...

Way to keep trying to blame the tool and not the user...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

\

Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms.

While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted.

Illegally modified? Please expand on this, as it's the first I've heard of it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

\

Don't forget to add: with legally obtained firearms.

While we're selectively remembering: with legally obtained firearms that were illegally modified, and taken where to a location where they are not permitted.

WHAT?

People can LEGALLY obtain guns and then do bad things with them?

You mean those wonderful, responsible Law Abiding Gun Owners can morph into CRIMINALS?

Say it ain't so.

Yup...just like 4 pilots commandeered planes and caused 9/11 - better turn in that Mooney, Doc!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree.

Oh really? Better try again, Doc - prior to 1968, you could mail-order guns from catalogs. Between 1968 and 1993, you signed a form at the gunshop and that was it. The background check didn't come into play until 1993 with the Brady bill, and is unchanged since then.

How many gun massacres before 1968 (barring Whitman, we know about that one)? How many between 69 and 93? And how many SINCE 93?

Guns are HARDER to aquire than ever, and yet the GUNS are the cause of people going off-beam and shooting places up? Preposterous!

This is cultural, not related to the availability (or not) of guns.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[vortexring 0]

Quote

This is cultural, not related to the availability (or not) of guns.

Yes, it is cultural. The American gun culture.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

This is cultural, not related to the availability (or not) of guns.

Yes, it is cultural. The American gun culture.

Prove it's the guns and not the individuals USING the guns, then...answer the questions I posted above...then you can explain how guns caused the deaths at the Happy Land nightclub.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

This is cultural, not related to the availability (or not) of guns.

Yes, it is cultural. The American gun culture.

One more time

I am glad my RIGHT to own a gun is protected from wrong opinioned souls such as your self. Stats and common sense show you to be wrong....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

editorial from the Washington Times

.....has it right on the money


Trail of travail
By Pierre Lemieux
April 24, 2007


Virginia Tech (Blacksburg), Columbine (Colorado), Polytechnique (Canada), Dunblane (Scotland), Jonesboro (Arkansas), Nickel Mines (Pennsylvania), and Dawson College (Canada). What do these tragic mass killings of students and school children have in common? The answer is not obvious.
What is obvious, to those of us who look beyond the headlines, is that mass killings were rare when guns were easily available, but have increased as guns have become more controlled.
In the early 20th century, guns were easily available to ordinary people in all civilized countries, including England, Canada, the United States, and France. In many cases, individuals could freely carry them concealed. But all that changed.
Scotland's 1996 Dunblane massacre, for example, which claimed the lives of 16 children, occurred in a country where, after seven decades of increasing gun controls, it had become very difficult for ordinary citizens to own guns, especially handguns, and illegal to carry them virtually anywhere.
Similarly, the 2006 Dawson College shootings in Canada occurred after 15 years of increasingly rigid gun controls, making it illegal to bear arms even on your own property. In the United States, where the majority of the shooting tragedies have occurred, federal gun controls have increased nearly continuously since the 1960s. None of the massacres was committed by people who were legally allowed to have guns where they committed their crimes, with many of the killings occurring in government-mandated "gun-free zones."
The truth, as the tragedy in Blacksburg reminds us, is that it is impossible to be totally protected by the police against criminal maniacs, except by turning society into a prison. There is one important question, though. What if some students or professors had been armed at Virginia Tech, a school where guns are banned?
Interestingly, a bill that would have allowed students and employees to carry handguns on Virginia campuses was defeated in the state General Assembly earlier this year. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker hailed the defeat: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." Now what?
When asked at a press conference after the killings what can be done to ensure campus security, Virginia Tech President Charles Steger indicated there is no way to place a police guard in every classroom or dormitory. That's so true.
But contrast the horrific Virginia Tech shootings with the January 2002 killings at Virginia's Appalachian Law School. Within minutes of shooting three people in the dean's office, disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa was stopped by two students who had retrieved handguns from their cars. They disarmed the killer and turned him over to the police.
Obviously, when people are intent on massacring defenseless students, there is no sure panacea. Yet, there must be a reason why such killings haven't occurred at places like the University of Utah, where people licensed to carry guns can bring them on campus, including university buildings. There might be a reason why the Dawson College killer, who had a car and apparently no special reason to target that specific school, did not go instead to the National Police School, about 100 miles from Montreal, where all students are armed.
We need to take a broader view. Something other than the low probability of being stopped before doing much damage must be at play. Some decades ago, most people, including unruly youths, and perhaps even most criminals, were under certain moral constraints that they were ashamed to break. Since that time, these constraints have crumbled, replaced by post-modernist nihilism and the heavy hand of government.
There have always been self-deluded maniacs who, in order to seek solace and fame, wage destruction. Such was Herostratus who, in 356 B.C., and precisely for this reason, burned the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. However, I seriously doubt he would have killed schoolchildren or young women, even if he had the power to do so.

So long as we tolerate a nanny-state culture of dependency, in which people are treated as children, disarmed and prohibited from protecting themselves, senseless mass killings will continue, and perhaps increase.

Pierre Lemieux is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., and associate professor of Economics at the University of Quebec at Outaouais

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lindsey 0]

This event, and the many similiar in the past, is a primary reason to explain why you should end legal gun ownership. It's just not worth it.

Often, what may make logical sense to some, doesn't play out the way you think it will. I've not seen any hard data to make me think that taking away citizen's guns will stop violence. In fact, didn't I see something recently about gun crime rates in England continuing to rise a decade after the citizens' guns were confiscated?

Despite all of that, there are a lot of things that would keep us safer. It's my belief that maintaining our freedoms is more important than keeping us safer the vast majority of the time. It's easy to react, though, to unsettling events with something....anything....that we think might prevent such events in the future. It's easy to to take a righteous stance because our goals, we think, are good. But I think when we do that, we're often not seeing the forest for the trees. In my opinion, that's the case here.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is cultural, not related to the availability (or not) of guns.

Yes, it is cultural. The American gun culture.

One more time

I am glad my RIGHT to own a gun is protected from wrong opinioned souls such as your self. Stats and common sense show you to be wrong....

Stats show that the US homicide rate with guns way exceeds the total homicide rate (all causes) in almost all other western nations. Common sense shows that you are deluding yourself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

editorial from the Washington Times

ha ha. You a big fan of Sun Young Moon?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

Stats show that the US homicide rate with guns way exceeds the total homicide rate (all causes) in almost all other western nations. Common sense shows that you are deluding yourself.

Hmm. I thought that our lower-than-average life expectancy in the US was because of the shitty healthcare we provide. Maybe it involves other variables (like homicide), and comparisons have to be less superficial to be meaningful. Similarly, saying that our gun-related homicide rates exceeds the total homicide rates in most other western nations does not speak to a best solution to the problem of gun-related homicide in the US.

I think both issues are broader than your brush paints them, though it would be nice if all of society's ills could be packaged up so neatly.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Yup...that legally obtained gun warped his mind and MADE him do it...

Way to keep trying to blame the tool and not the user...

Not blaming the tool at all. The facts show that a person who has been deemed a danger to himself and others is still able to legally obtain guns. In this case it wasn't even due to an oversight from the state. Virginia state law says that only those who are committed in a mental instutute against their will have to be registered in the background system. Apprently Virginia has one of the better systems to do this compared to the other states.

I am not blaming the guns at all. I have said many times before that incidents like VT are the price the US as a society pays for the road the embarked on a long time ago. Hence, I don't see it as a problem that needs fixing.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Ha ha - Tried carrying your gun into a courthouse recently?

Nope--They have metal detectors.

Quote

Or an airport?

Nope--They have metal detectors.

Quote

Or your state capitol building?

Yep--They don't have metal detectors, and it's legal to do so.

As a friend of mine who is an officer with the Lexington, Kentucky, Police Department explained, “If you have a concealed carry [license], then you should be allowed to carry anywhere there are not metal detectors. Saying you cannot carry in certain places, like schools, only makes the people that obey the law stop carrying, not the criminals. Criminals don't see the sign and think, 'Gee, I better not shoot there.'”

Quote

I think you protest too much about the universality of your right.

When metal detectors and armed guards are in place, the government has made reasonable compensation for removing my ability to protect myself. When metal detectors and armed guards are not in place, it has not made reasonable compensation; therefore, I should be allowed the ability to protect myself.

Metal detectors and armed guard cannot be placed at the entrance to every school and business or on every sidewalk and street corner; therefore, my ability to protect myself should not be limited in those situations.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree.

Show me a single source that connects the gun lobby to the inability of Virginia's system of background checks to dig up this man's mental health problems. Most of the "gun lobby" types whom I hear talking about this incident on TV support a change in the screening process, to include this type of mental health record.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Metal detectors and armed guard cannot be placed at the entrance to every school and business or on every sidewalk and street corner; therefore, my ability to protect myself should not be limited in those situations

Is there an intrinsic and spelled out right in US law to protect yourself with a firearm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Metal detectors and armed guard cannot be placed at the entrance to every school and business or on every sidewalk and street corner; therefore, my ability to protect myself should not be limited in those situations

Is there an intrinsic and spelled out right in US law to protect yourself with a firearm?

A government doesn't own rights. Law may sometimes acknowledge existing rights for clarity, but it certainly doesn't "grant" rights to people. That's silly. We aren't owned.

Why should there be a law "allowing" one to protect oneself?

As for explicitly stating with 'firearms' - Is there an intrinsic and spelled out right in the US law to protect yourself with fists and feet?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree.

Show me a single source that connects the gun lobby to the inability of Virginia's system of background checks to dig up this man's mental health problems. Most of the "gun lobby" types whom I hear talking about this incident on TV support a change in the screening process, to include this type of mental health record.

The NRA and its cronies lobby hard against any and all restrictions on the unlimited access to guns by its members. They lobbied against waiting periods, against restrictions on multiple purchases, against restrictions on large capacity magazines (which the VT shooter had and obtained legally), against restrictions on "cop killer" ammo...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

A government doesn't own rights. Law may sometimes acknowledge existing rights for clarity, but it certainly doesn't "grant" rights to people. That's silly. We aren't owned.

Why should there be a law "allowing" one to protect oneself?

As for explicitly stating with 'firearms' - Is there an intrinsic and spelled out right in the US law to protect yourself with fists and feet?

That's what I thought. So a limit on how you can protect yourself isn't that silly. As long as you are free not to enter those places if you so chose.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

The NRA and its cronies lobby hard against any and all restrictions on the unlimited access to guns by its members. They lobbied against waiting periods, against restrictions on multiple purchases, against restrictions on large capacity magazines (which the VT shooter had and obtained legally), against restrictions on "cop killer" ammo...

Nice try.

Waiting periods, multiple guns buys, and hi-cap mags don't have any effect on crime. None of these would have made any difference in the VT incident.

"Cop-killer" ammo (I'm assuming you're referring to hollow-point ammo) is what nearly every PD uses. It's less likely to penetrate body armor than cheaper (much cheaper) and more readily available FMJ ammunition, and is designed not to over-penetrate and injure others. "Cop-killer" ammo sure does sound scary though, so it's a favorite term of the anti-gun lobby.

And IIRC, the NRA is in favor of legislation that would include more information (such as the VT shooters mental health issues) in the NICS system.

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I saw on the news was a madman who gunned down thirty-two unarmed people in a "gun free zone."

Yes, shameful, isn't it, that the gun lobby has managed to water down the background checks to the extent that a "madman" can legally buy a gun and ammunition for the purpose of going on a killing spree.

Show me a single source that connects the gun lobby to the inability of Virginia's system of background checks to dig up this man's mental health problems. Most of the "gun lobby" types whom I hear talking about this incident on TV support a change in the screening process, to include this type of mental health record.

The NRA and its cronies lobby hard against any and all restrictions on the unlimited access to guns by its members. They lobbied against waiting periods, against restrictions on multiple purchases, against restrictions on large capacity magazines (which the VT shooter had and obtained legally), against restrictions on "cop killer" ammo...

The VT killer waited the required thirty days between purchases; it didn't seem to have any deterrent effect on his killing spree. There's nothing to indicate that spending two seconds reloading between every three victims would have lead to the loss of any less lives than spending two seconds reloading between every five victims. Do you even know what "cop killer" ammo is? Can you name a single case where a cop was killed by "cop killer" ammo?

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This is cultural, not related to the availability (or not) of guns.

Yes, it is cultural. The American gun culture.

One more time

I am glad my RIGHT to own a gun is protected from wrong opinioned souls such as your self. Stats and common sense show you to be wrong....

Stats show that the US homicide rate with guns way exceeds the total homicide rate (all causes) in almost all other western nations. Common sense shows that you are deluding yourself.

You go ahead and shift the data to snow yourself if you want but I know better

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

editorial from the Washington Times

ha ha. You a big fan of Sun Young Moon?

Ah the great kallends one liners (of no substance) again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[FreeflyChile 0]

isn't ammo that kills a cop by literal definition "cop killing"?

since you started the thread, i'll ask you this question, though anyone else please feel free to answer:

it appears to me that part of the pro-gun argument is that taking guns away from everyone will only take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, and that criminals will be the only ones to have access. my understanding of this point of view is that since this country afforded people the right to have guns long ago, it went down a path that can no longer be reversed.

so my question is: if you were to start your own country, brand spankin new, and you had no worry of your government going all tyrannical on you, would you then still give your citizens the right to have guns? in this hypothetical, no one has guns from the start.