Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
22,000 Students Are trying to Make Guns Legal on Campus
npr.org — After shootings on college campuses in Illinois and Virginia, 12 states are considering measures to let students carry guns. Stephen Feltoon is part of a movement that says college students should have the same gun rights as others.
BCKids1208- 2093 diggs
- digg it
- freedomwv, on 04/02/2008, -109/+288I remember saying to at many of my friends the day the VT shooting happened that if the student had been allowed to have guns on campus no one would had to die except that psycho nut Cho.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -24/+177It seems almost certain his first two victims (in the dorm) would not have been saved and it is probable he would have assaulted some in the class building before students / faculty with CCWs could react, but I would bet my life the death toll would have been reduced by 50 to 90%.
- elpohl, on 04/02/2008, -49/+64It would be better just to remove guns from the equation, rather than analyzing how can they be balanced between bad guys and good guys. From a non-American point of view, the idea of carrying a gun seems totally retarded. I would feel 100% unsafe. *****, even police officers in this country (NL) don't carry guns, and the ***** ride bikes! But criminality isn't high! The problem is the people, and their education. I really couldn't trust an absent minded student with a gun in his backpack. WTF!
- WNW3, on 04/02/2008, -26/+10"It would be better just to remove guns from the equation" Then what do you propose we fight the aliens, robots and zombies with? Harsh language?
- alexforcefive, on 04/02/2008, -7/+11jiu jitsu. unless they have tentacles. ***** man, what if they have tentacles?
- cbabraham, on 04/03/2008, -6/+2I hope every realizes that non of the people in the classrooms at the V-Tech shootings had concealed weapons permits. So if guns had been allowed on campus nothing would have changed because the people carrying guns would not have been in those classrooms on those days.
- Parapadrifter, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2but... if Americans glorified their right to own and operate a gun ... would gun crime go down?
- yoda133113, on 04/02/2008, -14/+38How do you propose that, in places that they "remove all the guns" gun crime often goes up.
- elpohl, on 04/02/2008, -18/+24Look man, here in Western/Central Europe its EXTREMELY uncommon to hear about an armed robbery, an assault, a kidnap, much less a mass murdering psycho. Maybe in Britain, but in the rest, nay. And whenever some ***** like that happens, it goes straight to the front page, 8 columns. That weird.
- EmileVictor, on 04/02/2008, -27/+7Just maybe they're doing it wrong then?
You can't "remove all the guns" if it's in your constitution. You need to change the constitution first (why is a clause allowing guns in there in the first place?) before you even attempt that.
That's why America's in the situation it's in now - a constitution that does some very good things, and some very negative things. - flip2trip, on 04/03/2008, -1/+26EmileVictor--The 2nd amendment was established so the people would have recourse when the government overstepped it's bounds. In other words if a government turns tyrannical the people will be armed in order to overthrow that government.
- johnfredson, on 04/03/2008, -4/+10People from other countries just dont understand the people of the US. Yes, there is more crime here, but that is not caused by ownership of guns, it is unfortunate that there are just more people willing to commit violent crime. Sure, if no one here committed violent crimes, and none of the criminals owned guns, I might be fine with guns being banned. However, in a society already filled with guns and violence, adding a few more guns into the hands of people who want to use them for protection is not going to hurt much. For the record, concealed carry requires that you take a special class before you are allowed to concealed carry, and the people who do it are usually gun enthusiasts who practice with their firearms regularly. They arent just handing out guns to anyone who wants one. Concealed carry without a permit is illegal in most states.
- senatorpjt, on 04/03/2008, -1/+11It's too late to ban guns here, there are already too many around.
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -12/+6@flip2trip
That's wrong, the right to bear arms is so that in times of invasion we would have a militia that is already armed. While that sort of thing is outdated today, it makes perfect sense in a world right after the American Revolution. You can't really blame the founding fathers for that one. - fef560, on 04/03/2008, -5/+1source yourself *****
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3@ elphol - entirely different cultures. In much of Europe, only the upper classes and their employees have been permitted to have weapons since the growth of nation states - unarmed subjects are much easier to control. Until the early 1900s (later if one counts Alaska), firearms were essential tools in much of this nation. Then, too, our experience in the Revolution showed the wisdom of having an armed populace in the event a "reset button" should be required.
@ Emile - I'm quite sure there are tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of corpses in Siberia and Central Europe who, if they could speak, would tell you an armed populace is not a negative thing, although Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and some others thought so.
@ Shirt - You are reading your personal views or those of people opposed to armed citizens into your allegation. There is NOTHING in either the Constitution or the Federalist Papers (in which the intentions of the Founding Fathers were spelled out for the benefit of the electorate who would ultimately make the decisions about ratification) suggesting the purpose was intended solely for repulsing invasions. In fact, the justification given is to overthrow tyranny - as they had done only a few years before. Self-defense, hunting and defense of the nation were pretty much expected, a given, in the late 1700s.
@ fef - if I may answer for him, check out the statistics for DC which has become the crime capital of this nation as well as the nation's capital - and this is *BEFORE* we count the politicians ;-) . Since the District virtually outlawed possession of firearms, crime has soared. Check out Cook County IL (Chicago and environs). There are others; I'll let you do the math if you want more citations.
- baran29, on 04/02/2008, -15/+15"I really couldn't trust an absent minded student with a gun in his backpack."
Nobody I know of who wants to carry a gun on campus would be stupid enough to do so in his backpack. And they aren't absent minded, either.- dandonia, on 04/03/2008, -22/+11How do you go from - "Students are getting shot on campus" - to - "Lets legalise guns on campus!" Americans are so ***** retarded.
Since coming to uni - my mate got mugged by two guys and there has been several fights break out. No one is dead, no one is still injured. We dont got guns to shoot with
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -3/+15@dandonia
OK here's the thing, since you're clearly a bit slow. I am personally not 100% with this either, but let me explain the mentality behind it for you because you obviously just don't get it. Here goes:
A person crazy enough to shoot people is going to bring the gun onto campus despite the anti-gun rules. Why would they let something like that stop them? They will bring the guns on campus and shoot people - who are defenseless - with them. OK, we're settled on that one right? Now, these people clearly have deep seated mental issues that make them willing to shoot people in cold blood. Here's the kicker: there is no reason whatsoever that the right to carry a gun on campus would make a sane person somehow instantly insane. If the VA Tech shooter had busted into a classroom with 4 or 5 people carrying guns do you think he would have killed as many people as he did before he shot himself? Of course not.
Once again, this is the mentality behind this movement, so that you might understand the rationality behind it. You can't ban guns in the US because gun ownership is too deep rooted into our society. Do you think all the current gun owners are just going to hand over their guns? If there are going to be concealed weapons in our society (and don't kid yourself, there are going to be), they may as well be allowed on campus as well. That is what these people are arguing for. Self-defense. Nothing more. - goldfishey, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2why should they be concealed then? If your gonna carry them, then let them be visible. If your going to be allowed to carry guns on campus, make them register with the university and carry them visible. If their purpose is in the defense of unarmed students against a nut job on a killing spree - then there's no point to a sneak attack, so why the need for concealment? Surely the point is to send a loud and clear message that the campus is crawling with people who are going to shoot back?
- jeffwmartin, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3@goldfishey
The reason it's not wise to carry openly is if someone is intent on shooting up a classroom, guess who the first target will be? Part of the deterrent aspect of concealed carry is the fact that the bad guys just don't know who has a gun and who doesn't.
In my state (Tennessee), we have handgun carry permits, they don't require concealed carry. I, and most people, always conceal though. The law is worded that way so you can't get in trouble if you accidentally expose your handgun (like reaching for a high shelf, etc.).
- dandonia, on 04/03/2008, -22/+11How do you go from - "Students are getting shot on campus" - to - "Lets legalise guns on campus!" Americans are so ***** retarded.
- Mothrog, on 04/02/2008, -5/+44How the hell do you propose to remove 200 million guns from private hands? Oh, and by the way, they tried that with alcohol here too. It turned out really well.
- dandonia, on 04/03/2008, -24/+7You offer up a cash insentive for the guns. Most people are law obiding citizans and would hand in their gun if it was made illegal to have them. Even more people would hand over their gun if they were been offered double the guns worth in cash to do so. Completely banning the sale of bullets and making bullets illegal to own would reduce the problem further.
This is not an over night solution. Sure there would be criminal with guns, but apparantly thats already the case. If it were illegal to have/sell guns/bullets for the last 50 years - gun crime would be at an all time low today. Implement it now and it would be at an all time low in 10 years, then in 20 years even lower and 30 years even lower. People with guns are not scared to commit a crime in case they get shot by the person they are harming - they are scared the police will shoot them but not their victim. Thats because people with guns know they have the element of suprize. - aurorous, on 04/03/2008, -0/+18It's is a core belief of the national rifle association that the confiscating of fire arms is the biggest single step towards a police state. And in the minds of those people you might as well be offering them cash in exchange for their freedom because that is exactly how they would see it.
- Mothrog, on 04/03/2008, -1/+26"Most people are law obiding citizans and would hand in their gun if it was made illegal to have them."
You really don't know *****, do you?
"Completely banning the sale of bullets and making bullets illegal to own would reduce the problem further."
Bullets are pretty easy to cast. Oh, sorry, do you mean cartridges? They're not exactly hard to make either. It's not exactly hard to turn brass, primers can be made, and so can powder. Bullets can be cast easily too.
"Sure there would be criminal with guns, but apparantly thats already the case."
Then what's the point of banning guns, again?
"If it were illegal to have/sell guns/bullets for the last 50 years - gun crime would be at an all time low today."
Like drug use?
"People with guns are not scared to commit a crime in case they get shot by the person they are harming - they are scared the police will shoot them but not their victim."
Uh, yeah. Police officers are trained to use a lot of restraint when applying lethal force. A woman about to get raped? Not so much. - Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -0/+18Please explain the source of the funding for the "cash incentives" to be provided for all firearms in the United States, assuming only 200 million firearms of an average value of $750 each (note that both values are likely below the actual values). Please also explain compensation methods for ammunition -- including home-reloaded ammunition -- and ammunition reloading equipment that will become useless (or even illegal) following a ban on civilian firearms ownership, explain compensation for firearms cleaning equipment that would no longer be of any use, explain a system for refunding money used to acquire various firearms-related permits across all states (such as permits to acquire in states with such requirements, and pemits for carrying concealed deadly weapons).
Also explain how you would enhance security for individuals who would be forcibly disarmed by law. Explain what compensatory actions would be taken for civilians who were recently disarmed and who subsequently became the victim of a violent crime wherein they may have been able to defend themselves should their firearm not have been confiscated by the government.
Also explain how you will initially enact such a prohibition, given that such a plan currently does not have popular support and given that it would violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. - Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -2/+11Haha, people would hand over their guns. You haven't been to the South have you?
- logan074, on 04/03/2008, -0/+7The problem being that if all of these law abiding criminals hand over their guns then that meanss the only people with guns are the non law abiding ones. That just seems like a bad idea.
- Pixelante, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Would you hand over all of your computing devices if there were an incentive? It may happen, you know...
And your books maybe. Law abiding citizens would never want in their home something that had been made illegal.
Oh, sorry. Those are not law abiding citizens. The right word is "slaves". - Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1dandonia, clearly you have very little understanding of American history, law, and cultural values. In areas hostile to private ownership of firearms, there have been several attempts at "buy-backs" comparable to your suggestion. Other than a few quality arms turned in by widows or the like, what is delivered to the authorities are damaged beyond repair or cheap junk. It didn't work real well in Australia, either. For months before the deadline, building contractors simply could not acquire large diameter PVC pipe; it was all being sold - at substantial mark-ups at gun shops and shows. Free men do not surrender the means to keep themselves free. The Canadian registry attempt is an enormously expensive *****-up which is way over budget and plagued by problems (many of which have been caused by uncooperative owners).
If the authorities decided to ban private ownership, to seize them, as many of our liberal politicians and tofu eaters wish, they would face an armed revolt - which is EXACTLY the reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
- dandonia, on 04/03/2008, -24/+7You offer up a cash insentive for the guns. Most people are law obiding citizans and would hand in their gun if it was made illegal to have them. Even more people would hand over their gun if they were been offered double the guns worth in cash to do so. Completely banning the sale of bullets and making bullets illegal to own would reduce the problem further.
- Di0genes, on 04/03/2008, -5/+17You *can't* illegalize gun ownership in the United States, so suggestions to do so are moot. Anyway, a great many of us take pride in the fact that, on one issue, anyway, we have the courage to forfeit comfort for the sake of individual liberty. From this American's point of view, the idea of the government masquerading as an overseer is vile and demeaning. I am responsible enough to carry whatever I please, the safety of the collective be damned.
Let alone the fact that- frasermoo, on 04/03/2008, -0/+18was he just shot?
- flip2trip, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5frasermoo--I had to digg you up man you made me laugh.
- bot001220, on 04/03/2008, -0/+7The government can't take away your guns, but apparently they can take away your keyboards.
- NetPyro, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2shoop da whoop
- DucoNihilum, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Oh shi... Candlejack is stealing peop
- burrgrinder, on 04/03/2008, -2/+10You fail at understanding American CCW laws. You have to go through a training course to carry a concealed weapon and demonstrate a minimum level of marksmanship, and CCW holders wouldn't dare toss a loaded unholstered weapon into a backpack, it's negligent and something that could get your permit revoked.
As a CCW holder, I carry a weapon daily (I live in a dangerous area, random gang related shootings *are* common here). It's never accidentally discharged itself in the holster, and I've never shot anybody. I think it's stupid that there are "off-limits" locations. If I'm trusted enough to carry into the mall, restaurants, and businesses, why am I suddenly unable to be responsible for my actions in a church, school or government building? If I was going to shoot the place up, odds are I don't care about that law anyways.
Guns and the USA go hand in hand, you'll never separate the two unless there's some sort of revolution or successful country wide martial law in place. That being the case, arbitrary gun free zones means "perform your crime here, nobody can shoot back at you" zones. That's great that you don't have gun crime wherever you are, but there are millions of missing/lost/stolen weapons in the US. Outright banning them wouldn't stop gun crime with the amount of illegal weapons in circulation here. - Evolve, on 04/03/2008, -7/+4@ burrgrinder
"You have to go through a training course to carry a concealed weapon and demonstrate a minimum level of marksmanship,"
Just means they are a better shot and more people die due to the increased accuracy of the 'now CCW licensed killer'.
If you allow everyone to carry a gun in public then there is a constant threat of danger because at any one time someone could open fire and by the time you react (guessing your not a split-second marksman) people are already dead.
What school would you send your kid to (lets assume you have one):
School A) - Weapons of any kind are not tolerated and students found carrying weapons are sent to the *insert law enforcement*
Threats at this school are limited to the normal school threads, and the 1/100000 chance of a shooting.
School B)- Students are allowed weapons, so now if there is a argument/conflict these immiture students will go for their guns and most likely result in many school shootings. Of which your child is most likely to be in the cross fire of.
Good work, hope it works out for you.
- WNW3, on 04/02/2008, -26/+10"It would be better just to remove guns from the equation" Then what do you propose we fight the aliens, robots and zombies with? Harsh language?
- drizzlelicious, on 04/02/2008, -16/+12Not only that, but similar incidences will happen much more often. Good idea.
- twomeyw23334, on 04/02/2008, -4/+16Yeah, just like in Florida right? I remember right before they allowed concealed weapons permits every anti-gun nut was describing how Florida was going to turn into the Wild West and there would be crazy shoot outs and people blowing each other away every night. But..... as usual, homicides and crime rates went down.
- dandonia, on 04/03/2008, -16/+3Produce some evidence of crime going down specifically gun crime - then eliminate all the crimes that were illegal before the law changed
Stat 1 - 50% of crimes commited in New York are murder
American 1 "Gee Bob, there are so many murder crimes happening in my state, what can I do to fix it"
American 2 " Well it's simple make murder legal. No one would try killing someone if they knew they could get killed legally"
American 1 "Thats genious, I'm making that law right now"
Stat 2 - 0% of crimes commited in New York are murder
Americans All Over "That guy deserves a medal, he eradicated all murder crimes" - GliTCH82, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Yeah, dandonia, quite simply put you're still wrong.
- flip2trip, on 04/03/2008, -0/+7dandonia--- from the National Center for Policy Analysis---
Perhaps the most powerful example that gun control does not equal crime control is the United States. Prior to the enactment of federal gun controls in 1968, guns could be bought virtually anywhere by any adult, but the national murder rate then was half what it is now. In fact, evidence suggests that guns are an effective crime deterrent in the hands of legal owners. A study published by the University of Chicago found that crime rates are lower when civilians are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Murder rates in the District of Columbia and Chicago actually went up after each jurisdiction passed restrictive gun control laws. Burglaries of occupied dwellings in the gun-free U.K. are much more frequent than in the United States. - drizzlelicious, on 04/03/2008, -9/+4Like university students are allowed to carry unconcealed weapons in the first place. The more potential for something to happen, the more it will happen.
Now I will be dugg down for sporting an unpopular opinion - Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+6Because you're opinion is incorrect. Blatantly. There is nothing about university students carrying guns being discussed. However, there is a topic in discussion here about 21 YEAR OLDS, who pass courses and acquire a license, to be allowed to carry concealed firearms on campus. Students ARE allowed to carry guns in illegal zones assuming they are 21.
- drizzlelicious, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You may be right, but I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned allowance of unconcealed weapons on campus. I'll be happy to retract my statement if you can show me where it says that.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3@ drizzle - it may not be stated, but it is a given. You have to be 21 to own a handgun in the US (Federal law), so ipso facto, no one under 21 will be carrying legally. Secondly, permits are required for legal concealed carry in all states except Vermont and Alaska. Thus in 100% of the cases, the person will be 21 or older and in at least 99.5% of those, it will be a person who has passed some sort of vetting process.
- dandonia, on 04/03/2008, -16/+3Produce some evidence of crime going down specifically gun crime - then eliminate all the crimes that were illegal before the law changed
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -0/+6Please justify your assertion. Provide explanations based upon statistical analysis of locations where firearms are allowed on university campuses. An example would be any state-run university in the state of Utah, as such schools are prohibited by state law from disallowing individuals licensed by the state to carry concealed deadly weapons from doing so.
- twomeyw23334, on 04/02/2008, -4/+16Yeah, just like in Florida right? I remember right before they allowed concealed weapons permits every anti-gun nut was describing how Florida was going to turn into the Wild West and there would be crazy shoot outs and people blowing each other away every night. But..... as usual, homicides and crime rates went down.
- mintcoffee, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1Sure, people would be saved.. if they knew who to shoot at. Imagine the chaos of a lecture room of 100+ with half of the people pulling out guns. I would imagine things would only go downhill from there.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2It's very easy to identify someone shooting at you at the distances involved at VT and NIU . . . we're talking 50 feet (16 meters) or less. Highly unlikely, unless it is a graduate level course, one would have many (if any) students carrying firearms. CCW holders average maybe 2% of our population . . . but for criminals, it is the Russian roulette guess if one or more potential victims are in the 2% or easy pickings. Highly restrictive jurisdictions and "gun free zones" just make it easy for them to target their prey.
- airiox, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2If those girls would have carried guns too he would have never drawn his. There were no crazed gunners back in the day because everyone carried a gun. These crazed people specifically target places they know their rampage won't be ended prematurely. Must just be a coincidence.
- elpohl, on 04/02/2008, -49/+64It would be better just to remove guns from the equation, rather than analyzing how can they be balanced between bad guys and good guys. From a non-American point of view, the idea of carrying a gun seems totally retarded. I would feel 100% unsafe. *****, even police officers in this country (NL) don't carry guns, and the ***** ride bikes! But criminality isn't high! The problem is the people, and their education. I really couldn't trust an absent minded student with a gun in his backpack. WTF!
- GodsDragon, on 04/02/2008, -95/+51The more guns people have the more people end up getting shot, its a simple as that. Putting guns in schools is a large step in the wrong direction.
- omgitsfletch, on 04/02/2008, -14/+76Yea, only letting the psychos have them works a lot better. Just remember that if you're ever in a situation like this, you'll be wishing that the law-abiding student next to you who is well trained in firearms had been allowed to bring his weapon to college and stop the threat.
- dynelol, on 04/02/2008, -32/+9Since when the ***** are we LETTING the psychos have them?
- Dubbsacc, on 04/02/2008, -9/+31That's the point genius, we aren't LETTING them. They find a way to get a gun no matter what. If there were laws banning them, they would still get them. What does not compute?
- ufia, on 04/02/2008, -8/+7One single psycho could illegally slip through the crack. Ok, let's give up then. We should legally put a gun in the hand of every other psychos in the school, that will make the rest of innocent students so much safer. Oh, I get it, aren't we all psychos who envoy watching school shooting on TV?
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+6Irrelevant. They get the guns anyway. Simple as that.
- Theli, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1"They find a way to get a gun no matter what."
Aren't you just making it easier for them to bring it into the schools? - Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2@ ufia - if those who have CCW licenses are "psychos" as you suggest, surely you can point to vast numbers of assaults and homicides they have committed. Come back when you have even one to cite to support your point.
@ Theli - going onto campuses / into buildings does not require the security seen at airports. Are you suggesting it should? "Attention, students, be sure to arrive at Smith Hall an hour before your scheduled class time to pass the security check." And doing this 3 to 5 times a day, minimum? Who would pay for the equipment and personnel . . . every building, every school? The bad guys will find a way; they always do. It is a commonly accepted axiom that a person willing to die themselves usually will be able to kill even the most carefully protected official.
- g33b33, on 04/02/2008, -35/+11How about letting NO-ONE have them!
- mooseontheloose, on 04/02/2008, -6/+42Wow, that is a great idea. I can't believe nobody's ever thought of banning something to make it go away. What an ingenious, foolproof plan. Sir, I am nominating you for the position of President of the Galaxy.
- Heywoodj, on 04/02/2008, -3/+15Yea that'll work!
I smile as I look at the pile of roaches in my "special" ashtray. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 04/02/2008, -3/+17As soon as we win the war on drugs, and I can no longer find pot, then I will consider your idea.
- jfujita, on 04/03/2008, -5/+1g33b33, I agree with your idea. It works for many countries that have banned guns completely. Take Japan for example, there are psychos that have tried to kill their classmates but almost 100% of the time they use knives since guns are so damn hard to obtain in the country. In most incidents only 1 or 2 students are killed. Knives just doesn't have enough power to kill 30+ people in a short time. This law they are trying to pass is absolutely crazy. If everyone has guns, everyone will start wipping it out in every time they feel threatened and there will be unnecessary deaths. I would not feel comfortable going to a school where everyone around me carried guns. If you piss anyone off, boom your dead.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1@ jfuj - if those who have CCW licenses are "wipping (sic) it out in every time they feel threatened " as you suggest, surely you can point to vast numbers of assaults and homicides they have already committed (more than 2% of the population have these licenses in this country). Come back when you have even one to cite to support your point.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1g33b - This will be impossible to do until there are no firearms available in the world. Good luck with that. If there is money to be made (and illegal goods always offer the opportunity of profit), people will find a way to provide / obtain the product. Check drugs, Prohibition, etc. Give a decent machinist a few pieces of equipment and a minimal amount of steel - both of which are readily available in an industrial society - and he can build you a firearm. It may not be quite as accurate / fancy as one from the factory, but it will kill. you WILL NOT prevent anyone from obtaining weapons if they want them.
- solidus636, on 04/02/2008, -6/+20@dynelol
we aren't LETTING the criminals but we sure as hell are STOPPING the students from having them.- wellyuk, on 04/02/2008, -7/+6And you sure as hell AREN'T STOPPING the criminals from having them either.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1@ wellyuk - and it will be impossible to do so, no matter what we do, until there are no firearms available in the world. If there is money to be made (and illegal goods always offer the opportunity of profit), people will find a way the product. Check drugs, Prohibition, etc. Give a decent machinist a few pieces of equipment and a minimal amount of steel - both of which are readily available in an industrial society - and he can build you a firearm. It may not be quite as accurate / fancy as one from the factory, but it will kill. you WILL NOT prevent anyone from obtaining weapons if they want them.
- dynelol, on 04/02/2008, -32/+9Since when the ***** are we LETTING the psychos have them?
- TubaTechno, on 04/02/2008, -11/+21That sounds logical, until you actually look at reality.
It's kind of like, the term "fighting fire with fire". Firefighters actually START fires in order to extinguish one. Logical sounding no, but in reality it works.- wellyuk, on 04/02/2008, -8/+12That's fire and those are firefighters. These are guns and those are students.
- ufia, on 04/02/2008, -11/+4You can't extinguish a fire with fire, you *****. Firefighters are extinguishing fire with water, or any equivalent chemicals that can take away either one of the 3 fire components: heat, fuel, or oxygen. Ever tried burning down a building to save it from fire, genius?
- ehal256, on 04/02/2008, -2/+2Wow. lol he didn't mean actively extinguish fire with fire, but removing it's fuel. Then again, it isn't the best analogy.
- MaynardJK, on 04/03/2008, -1/+9I used to fight forest fires and I can tell you that I have extinguished fires with fire you *****.
- insertAliasHere, on 04/03/2008, -0/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_burn
It's called a controlled burn, and yes, they do use it to combat forest fires. - flip2trip, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3You ever heard of "smoke" jumpers? Check something out before you post.
- GliTCH82, on 04/03/2008, -0/+7Yeah, but it's not like you're giving every student a gun and letting them fend for themselves. There's a training and certification process that would allow them to carry guns responsibly and be good at using them for defense.
Plus, you don't have to carry one if you don't feel safe doing so. Nobody's forcing you.
- cawpin, on 04/02/2008, -8/+18You are completely ignorant apparently. I suggest everyone check out "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott. He started writing the book with the expectation/intention of showing what GodsDragon said but by the time he finished his research and writing the book his conclusion was exactly the opposite, as the title shows.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/02/2008, -11/+12Yeah, that's why the U.S. has a lower crime rate than Japan because we have more guns. But WAIT!!! the U.S. doesn't have a lower crime rate. So much for John Lott's idea...
- CamperBob, on 04/02/2008, -9/+4And Japan doesn't have 30,000,000 attractive, successful, yet strangely-disaffected and -impoverished African Americans. Your point?
- TheCasablancan, on 04/02/2008, -5/+22Japan has a lower crime rate because they work all the time, are thinking up crazy game shows, and have giant robot fights on a bi-weekly basis. You have to think logically about this.
- Civilizationist, on 04/02/2008, -2/+15Since when did guns cause crime?
- Brownds, on 04/02/2008, -3/+10Japan is far more educated and they are VARY family orientated. You are a product of your upbringing and most parents in the U.S. don't deserve the title.
- norman619, on 04/02/2008, -1/+3AND we can't carry guns in public w/o special permits which the average citizen is turned down. They are only approved under very special circumstances in most states. You are mistaking the right to OWN a gun with the right to CARRY a gun in public.
- Mothrog, on 04/02/2008, -3/+6Is there the same income disparity in Japan as there is in the US? Crime is slightly more complicated then gee, we have guns and they don't.
- twomeyw23334, on 04/03/2008, -1/+5To be logical you must take a certain location and look what happens to crime rate and homicide levels with changes in gun laws. This has been done many times and shows exactly what the book title says. Comparing two completely different locations with many different variables doesn't work. I could just as easily compare the homicide rates in a wealthy Texas town with liberal gun laws to a violent DC suburb with strict gun laws and say "BUT WAIT!!!!!, so much for your stupid comment!"
- jeffwmartin, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2@norman619
Apparently you don't live in a "shall-issue" state (39 out of 50). What you are describing is "may-issue", meaning you have to prove need to obtain a carry permit. Shall-issue states must grant the permit as long as you pass a training class and background check (different states may have slightly different requirements). - Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Swashbuckler - Lott's work addresses the issue INSIDE the US. Trying to compare one aspect of two vastly different cultures is a non-starter.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/02/2008, -11/+12Yeah, that's why the U.S. has a lower crime rate than Japan because we have more guns. But WAIT!!! the U.S. doesn't have a lower crime rate. So much for John Lott's idea...
- ir1337, on 04/02/2008, -4/+12Statistics or it isn't true. In fact, don't give statistics, instead evaluate your statement and come to some logical conclusion rather than a blanket statement. Everything I have seen says you are patently wrong. There are not a whole lot of old west shoot outs in Texas, yet the a significant percentage of the population carries firearms. Don't disarm the law abiding citizens; follow the Second Amendment of the Constitution and protect yourself, your family, your property from those who seek to wrest them from you. When I say those, I don't just mean the criminal element...the government is standing at the door stealing your rights away each time you turn your back. An armed citizenry is the ONLY way to stop a run-away government. Arm yourself before you need to be armed, or you will have lost your right and opportunity to do so.
- Wargalas, on 04/02/2008, -3/+24Yes, because Gun Free Zones like college campus' have worked so well up to this point right?
- GodsDragon, on 04/02/2008, -14/+8Well I live in Canada that has a bit tougher gun control and I can say that I feel safer because of that. Its simple there are not as many guns in Canada then the US thus gun crime's/ shootings are "much" lower. I could not go to school knowing that my classmates were all packing a gun.
- norman619, on 04/02/2008, -1/+8Feeling safer and actually being safer are 2 very different things. you can make gun illegal all you like. CRIMINALS do not buy their guns legally. They buy them on the street. The black market. Assault rifles are illegal/banned here in the US yet I know where I can buy one if I had the money and wanted one. So much for gun control. A years ago a street gang in NYC was busted in the possession of a freaking rocket launcher. Those have NEVER been legal for citizens to own. Gun control only disarms the innocent. It doesn't disarm the criminals.
- kablammoxerxis, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Yeah, you're right. We should enforce gun laws more vigorously.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1@ kabla - ***IF*** (that's a BIG "if") the 20,000 plus laws governing firearms currently on the books were enforced, there would be many more criminals in jail for very long sentences. BATFE, particularly, likes to target honest gun owners who make minor technical mistakes - it boosts their arrest statistics and incurs no risk, while violent criminals are put back on the streets time after time on probation.
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3"Well I live in Canada that has a bit tougher gun control and I can say that I feel safer because of that."
Interesting. I live in a state with relatively lenient firearms laws. While civilians are required to obtain a state-issued permit in order to carry concealed deadly weapons, such permits are granted on a "shall-issue" basis, meaning that any citizen who is legally allowed to own a firearm and who can pass a relatively simple written test and a basic firearms accuracy test will be granted a permit. Additionally, no permit is required at all to obtain any federally-allowed firearm -- including handguns -- and the carrying of unconcealed firearms is not restricted by state law. No city within the state may enact any additional firearms restrictions. Even though my state allows any law-abiding citizen to obtain and carry firearms, I do not feel "unsafe".
Perhaps your concerns are not rational, and your perception of additional safety is merely an illusion. - PabloMac, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3"Well I live in Canada that has a bit tougher gun control and I can say that I feel safer because of that."
Yeah, it's all about feelings.
- norman619, on 04/02/2008, -1/+8Feeling safer and actually being safer are 2 very different things. you can make gun illegal all you like. CRIMINALS do not buy their guns legally. They buy them on the street. The black market. Assault rifles are illegal/banned here in the US yet I know where I can buy one if I had the money and wanted one. So much for gun control. A years ago a street gang in NYC was busted in the possession of a freaking rocket launcher. Those have NEVER been legal for citizens to own. Gun control only disarms the innocent. It doesn't disarm the criminals.
- norman619, on 04/02/2008, -3/+4Too bad reality does not agree with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg- duke, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2Really? I'd love to see you prove that Canadians are in more danger of being shot with guns than Americans.
- TheCasablancan, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Well, those dudes from Quebec ARE rather tough...
- Wugie, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Did you mean to stay 'Too bad John Stossel does not agree with you?'
- Spuy767, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2I think he means to say too bad that all the studies reasearched and cited in those reports do not agree with you.
- duke, on 04/02/2008, -1/+2Really? I'd love to see you prove that Canadians are in more danger of being shot with guns than Americans.
- omgitsfletch, on 04/02/2008, -14/+76Yea, only letting the psychos have them works a lot better. Just remember that if you're ever in a situation like this, you'll be wishing that the law-abiding student next to you who is well trained in firearms had been allowed to bring his weapon to college and stop the threat.
- Spuy767, on 04/02/2008, -26/+82Anti-gun rules are an invitation for gun violence. Gun aws might be a bit lax, but a propery trained responsible citizen with a firearm to protect his or herself can be an asset with the ***** hits the fan. The police may be able to be there in a few minutes, but I can draw and shoot in a few seconds.
- g33b33, on 04/02/2008, -15/+23OK, now go build the "ACME Responsibility-Detector TM".
- browwiw, on 04/02/2008, -7/+21You're certainly setting off the ACME fascist detector.
- egoideal, on 04/02/2008, -10/+15"properly trained responsible citizen" is the key phrase. Are those in the same place as the hobbits and pixies?
- baran29, on 04/02/2008, -1/+10All gun laws tend to do though is remove the guns from the "properly trained responsible citizens". The criminals certainly don't give a f*ck about the laws.
- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -4/+16I can fly a plane without much effort, therefore I think everyone should be able to fly a plane without much resistance. I don't understand the argument that since you can draw and shoot accurately and responsibly that everyone should then be allowed to do so.
The right to bear arms should remain in tact, and I do not oppose our second amendment. What I do oppose is the reckless sale of firearms to people who should not have them. New York City's laws are working, and the efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is severely hindered by the fact that certain states have very few restrictions on the sale of guns, and in some cases NO restrictions (as in... the laws on the books are not enforced). The local laws are working to prevent crime, which is easily shown when you see how many of the illegal guns in NYC are purchased out of state ( http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion ... page 9)- rlbond86, on 04/03/2008, -4/+11Agreed. Remember that Cho and the shooter at Illinois were both able to get guns legally. Moreover, if students could carry guns on campus, what if they shot someone accidentally because they "thought" they were a threat? What if a fight broke out and someone took out their gun? The alleged benefits don't outweigh the costs.
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -1/+9"Moreover, if students could carry guns on campus, what if they shot someone accidentally because they "thought" they were a threat?"
As there are already a number of universities in the United States where students are allowed to carry firearms (provided, of course, that they are legally permitted to carry firearms within the state in general) and that the outcome that you fear has yet to occur, I do not believe that your concerns are justified. - logandurand, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5Armed citizens shoot the wrong person 2% of the time. Sounds bad, until you consider that cops shoot the wrong person 11% of the time. You heard me right, police are over FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY to shoot the wrong person than citizens. The difference is that the people who are directly involved in the situation are less likely to make mistakes.
- n00854180t, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3@logandurand, I don't doubt it, but as I'm curious, do you have a source?
- llurker, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2@n00854180t
I tend to agree with logandurand, I've taken FATS training soon after purchasing my first firearm. After lesson 1, I was shocked to learn that I had received more training than 80% of the law enforcement in the US. That was a little over 10 years ago. But I did learn a lot and the instructor was very good. If you are unfamiliar with FATS it is a virtual situation training system. You hold a 9mm that feels and shoots like the real thing (no bullets) and various situations are placed before you on the screen. After each situation the video is played back showing where your weapon was aimed and where the bullets went. Lesson 1 involved various things like someone breaking into your house, car, holdups, etc. You learn to watch the entire situation before even raising your weapon, scan for bystanders, what is behind the target, etc. There are many law enforcement agencies that do not have the budget for such systems, but my shooting range did.
$50 per lesson was all it cost (10 years ago anyway). I wish it were a requirement for CCW. - Spuy767, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2The law that they broke was carrying a gun onto campus, and Cho, by reason of his mental ilness should not have been sold a gun under current aws, and I don't believe we know yet why he was. But that argument only serves to reinforce the fact that keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens does not keep them out of the hands of criminals.
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -1/+9"Moreover, if students could carry guns on campus, what if they shot someone accidentally because they "thought" they were a threat?"
- Iconoclast25, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1cr, While there are some additional state laws, sales of firearms are first and foremost controlled by Federal statutes and implementing regulations. Most of the armed criminals arrested in NY have records showing prior arrests, plea bargains, suspended sentences, etc. The guy who killed a NYC officer a few years back, the incident which sent mikey bombast into his dog and pony show, should have been behind bars for life for previous state and Federal crimes, including something like 500 years worth for violation of Federal firearms laws alone. But the state and US atty just kept shuffling them in & out. You blue states bind up those bleeding hearts, put your tens of thousands of potential Willie Hortons behind bars (including the illegals!) and you will have a hell of a lot less crime.
- rlbond86, on 04/03/2008, -4/+11Agreed. Remember that Cho and the shooter at Illinois were both able to get guns legally. Moreover, if students could carry guns on campus, what if they shot someone accidentally because they "thought" they were a threat? What if a fight broke out and someone took out their gun? The alleged benefits don't outweigh the costs.
- Beammeup, on 04/02/2008, -8/+2You're belief that the police would be happy to have an armed citizen to 'help' them is completely, utterly, incredibly, astoundingly, moronically wrong. The police do not treat armed criminals and armed citizens any differently, if they see you with a gun they will shoot to kill. This is a policy that saves lives because in a gun fight you cannot safely determine the good from the bad.
- johnfredson, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Hopefully after 4 minutes when the police arrive you wont be in an active standoff with the criminals. If the criminals are not a direct threat to your life, then its probably a good idea to hide with your friends and wait for the police. In this situation, the guns are a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon, unless you are in a high rise and have Austrian terrorists trying to kill all of your friends in a party on the 3rd floor...or something like that.
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Seriously, why would you just jump into a gunfight for no reason? Putting yourself in a situation that increases threat to your life sounds like you're asking for it to me.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Shirt - seriously, those of us who carry (or at least I think I can speak for the majority) would much rather bail outa there than trade shots with some psycho or criminal. But the choice is not always available. Somebody like Cho, bent on killing as many as he can, is an obvious example. If my choice is drawing my weapon and engaging rather than being shot in the head or back at close range like some hapless sheep, you can bet your bottom dollar I will attempt to stop him before he hurts anyone else, and especially before he hits Mrs. Icon's little boy.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Actually, in surveys taken across the nation, police officers (the actual LEOs on the front lines, not the political appointees at the top) regularly support CCW laws and welcome citizen assistance by overwhelming margins.
- johnfredson, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Hopefully after 4 minutes when the police arrive you wont be in an active standoff with the criminals. If the criminals are not a direct threat to your life, then its probably a good idea to hide with your friends and wait for the police. In this situation, the guns are a defensive weapon, not an offensive weapon, unless you are in a high rise and have Austrian terrorists trying to kill all of your friends in a party on the 3rd floor...or something like that.
- g33b33, on 04/02/2008, -15/+23OK, now go build the "ACME Responsibility-Detector TM".
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/02/2008, -41/+25Good idea i dont think there are enough people getting shot at school.
- laserblazer, on 04/02/2008, -8/+16The guns are going to magically possess their owners and incite a shooting spree, eh? You don't seem to have much faith in man over machine.
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/02/2008, -9/+6It has nothing to do with man OVER machine. Its just having no faith in man period. Why should I?
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Then we can assume that you aren't actively pursuing any solution to any of mankind's problems and start ignoring you right? You can go shut the ***** up and be apathetic in the corner, k?
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/02/2008, -7/+4I dont go to school anymore so let them take bombs for all i care. Someone starts shooting blow the place up that will put a quick end to it.
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/02/2008, -9/+6It has nothing to do with man OVER machine. Its just having no faith in man period. Why should I?
- cybrguy, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4Ignorance is not bliss in this case, ignorance is a vulnerability.
- laserblazer, on 04/02/2008, -8/+16The guns are going to magically possess their owners and incite a shooting spree, eh? You don't seem to have much faith in man over machine.
- yevkasem, on 04/02/2008, -21/+13carrying a gun and shooting someone are two very, very different things, regardless of the situation. it might have a positive effect, but i doubt the desired effect will be less people dying per shooting.
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/02/2008, -11/+9less people dying per shooting. BUT more shootings so its a push.
- WilliamDavis, on 04/02/2008, -2/+12Right, since the average person just can't control themselves. I don't want knives available to college students, either. School is for learning, not running around knifing each other.
- yoda133113, on 04/02/2008, -2/+6Why more shootings, just cause you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. I have a knife on me about 95% of my waking hours and I have never stabbed anyone, a gun is a tool (for protection) and cannot do anything you don't make it do.
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Its a good this all kids in school are level headed and complete rational people
- Spuy767, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2The only person who you can legislate is one who obeys the laws.
- BruceDude, on 04/02/2008, -10/+3You can carry a water pistol. As long as the bad guy thinks its a gun, its a deterrent.
- davidrools, on 04/02/2008, -1/+7sadly, these days you can get kicked out of school for carrying a realistic looking water pistol.
- yoda133113, on 04/02/2008, -2/+7um...until you have to use it, you keep carrying the water gun, I'll stick to a real one.
- senatorpjt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1The problem with that is most of these guys end up killing themselves at the end.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3In these situations, a toy gun is worse than nothing at all. The psycho is not going to stop shooting until he is down. He sees you with what he thinks is a firearm . . . guess who becomes his priority target.
- Treoinmypocket, on 04/02/2008, -1/+14That's the beauty of feelings...they can always be refuted by facts. Do a litle research on the rise and fall of gun crime in states where the laws have gone from increasingly anti-gun to pro 2nd amendment in the last 10 years. Gun crime drops.
- Twelvevolts, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1someone might bring a bomb to school so everyone should be allowed to carry those as well
- OverlordXenu, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Is a bomb a defensive weapon? Is a gun?
- RonnyIsRondo, on 04/02/2008, -11/+9less people dying per shooting. BUT more shootings so its a push.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/02/2008, -19/+8But how many more would have died before that because guns were around?
- Treoinmypocket, on 04/02/2008, -6/+9none
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/02/2008, -11/+4ROFLMAO!!!
If you believe that you're an idiot...- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/02/2008, -1/+6dude you doomed yourself to the graveyard with the "ROFLMAO!!!"
- ehal256, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4Let's see, if you we're a crazed psychopath, who wanted to shoot some people DAMMIT! Where would you do it? A university where people were allowed to carry concealed firearms, or one where they weren't?
- Mothrog, on 04/02/2008, -1/+8Those with concealed carry permits may carry at their colleges in Utah. Please find an incident where someone in Utah was harmed by a licensed person.
- kablammoxerxis, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1Um, if you're a crazed psychopath, you're not factoring that much into your gun rampaging.
- ehal256, on 04/03/2008, -1/+0lol, that's true ^^
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Swashbuckler, while you're engaged in that sophomoric giggling spasm, please search out all the cases where licensees have been convicted of shooting and murdering non-criminals. Until then, you are the idiot.
- cybrguy, on 04/02/2008, -1/+4Err... look at historical precedence theswashbuckler. he is correct. Go find some facts while you LYAO.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 04/02/2008, -11/+4ROFLMAO!!!
- yoda133113, on 04/02/2008, -0/+8According to the studies that have been done thus far...none. People with concealed weapons permits are law abiding people (thus don't commit crimes), obviously this is a generality, but so far it's a pretty accurate one with a very small percentage of concealed carry permit carriers committing crimes (from 1987 to 1997 315,000 people were issued concealed carry permits in Florida and only 5 of them committed a violent gun crime, in other words less likely than the average person).
- Treoinmypocket, on 04/02/2008, -6/+9none
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/02/2008, -22/+19I think that everyone who is pro-concealed carry on campuses have a valid point. You can't argue against that there is a chance there death toll could have been much lower if someone could have fired back. But honestly, it was an isolated event. You can't base the rest of your life off the of the fact that it has happened once (or even a couple times) before. If someone wants to shoot up a school, they will. I don't think that knowing a couple kids in class might have a gun would stop it.
Pro-gun lobbyists seem to be some pretty delusional people in my mind. I live right next to Newark New Jersey, which is a pretty rough city. I don't know anybody in my town who feels the need to carry a gun. I go to VT, and my god for a town with almost a 0% crime rate (minus isolated incidences), people here are crazy. They feel like walking down the street (read: farm path) somebody is going to jump out and attack them. So why is it that in Bloomfield, which is definitely more dangerous of a place, people aren't as gun crazy as in Blacksburg, VA, which effectively has no crime? And to me that seems to be the pattern everywhere.- colin8651, on 04/02/2008, -2/+11As a little test, before you talk about people not needing guns in NJ, you should try to get a permit to carry from the NJ govt.
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/02/2008, -8/+1That's partially my point, no one I know would even try because they don't want one.
- colin8651, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Why would you not want a firearm, they are a threat equalizer. They are not a replacement for the fine men and women who risk their lives everyday protecting us, but they are a good tool that helps us bridge the gap before they can arrive. It's foolish to think that the Police can protect you when they are, on average, 4 minutes away. Allot can happen in 4 minutes, why would you consciously choose that 4 minutes to be unarmed.
A firearm turns a 95 pound female into a force to be reckoned with.
- colin8651, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Why would you not want a firearm, they are a threat equalizer. They are not a replacement for the fine men and women who risk their lives everyday protecting us, but they are a good tool that helps us bridge the gap before they can arrive. It's foolish to think that the Police can protect you when they are, on average, 4 minutes away. Allot can happen in 4 minutes, why would you consciously choose that 4 minutes to be unarmed.
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/02/2008, -8/+1That's partially my point, no one I know would even try because they don't want one.
- smurfsahoy, on 04/02/2008, -2/+13Why hasn't it occurred to you that Blacksburg, VA has almost no crime precisely BECAUSE people routinely carry guns? That's pretty much the entire pro-gun argument you just summed up there.
I know, causation != correlation. But your point of view doesn't even have correlation! And various weapons bans have showed us that you don't have causation, either. - Grym11, on 04/02/2008, -1/+7You act as if the two things are unrelated. That crime is unrelated to the fact that citizens are knowledgeable in how to (and/or prepared to) defend themselves with firearms. Why? Crimes and criminals don't exist in a vaccuum. Certainly they're conscious of their peers like you are. Isn't it reasonable to think that criminals might be less likely to commit violent acts if they know their victims might kill them in self-defense?
- AsSubtleAsABrik, on 04/02/2008, -0/+5***** digg not letting you delete your own comments during the edit period.
- StormyAaron, on 04/02/2008, -0/+7"...If someone wants to shoot up a school, they will. I don't think that knowing a couple kids in class might have a gun would stop it. ....." And laws banning guns from schools stopped school shootings.
Yes you are right that if some one wants to shoot up a school they will, armed students and staff or not, but by allowing the students to carry guns you are allowing the students to protect them selfs and other when the shooting happens, maybe people will still die but chances are that it will be lower then what it could of been if the students were not armed.- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -4/+1All it does is make shooters think about it more. They will find a way to cause the most damage if that's their intent. Maybe he'd hide in a window and pick people off instead of running around campus. Your logic is insane.
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3For one, this has already happened before. The number of people killed would be low in that situation because a gun that can fire accurately from a distance repeatedly is not automatic, giving people in the area time to hide in between shots. More people are in danger if you put yourself in a close range situation with a lot of people in a small area such as, you guessed it, a classroom. In either scenario, the fact that law abiding licensed gun carriers are able to have their guns on campus isn't hurting the situation is inarguable. What about this mentality is insane again?
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3Actually, in the first such case, Whitman shooting people from the tower in Texas, several students went to their cars, retrieved deer rifles and assisted the LEOs by keeping him under fire.
- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -4/+1All it does is make shooters think about it more. They will find a way to cause the most damage if that's their intent. Maybe he'd hide in a window and pick people off instead of running around campus. Your logic is insane.
- huszar02, on 04/02/2008, -0/+5Dude, in VA you can carry your gun into the General Assembly if you have a permit and declare the weapon. If the Commonwealth thinks you are legit enough to have a permit and carry it in the most important state buildings, then why not, for proven responsible individuals, on campus?
- Shirt, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3There is no reason not to allow this. You can go to sleep tonight knowing that you are correct.
- colin8651, on 04/02/2008, -2/+11As a little test, before you talk about people not needing guns in NJ, you should try to get a permit to carry from the NJ govt.
- SiliconRain, on 04/02/2008, -47/+40I can't believe how retarded you all are over this. The idea of students carrying guys around on campus is so repugnant that my mind recoils in disgust at the sheer stupidity being expressed here.
You have some of the most liberal gun laws in the developed world in America and the highest rate of gun crime to match. And you think the solution is to add more guns? You people really have started mating with vegetables.
Go ahead and bury me to China, but you might as well start shooting each other randomly while you're at it and do the rest of the world a favor.- badenglishihave, on 04/02/2008, -3/+6The problem isn't necessarily seen in the gun crime rate but rather the overall crime rate. For example, it makes logical sense that a burglar is less likely to break into a house if he knows that there may be a gun owner inside.
Look at this blog post about UK crime with statistics taken from several reputable sources: http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com/2007/01/serio ... . The gun ban effectively rose the overall crime rate even though the gun crime went down slightly.- SiliconRain, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2I've heard lots of statistics that directly contradict that link. But fact remains, it's never been legal to own handguns or carry any kind of gun in the street in the UK in living memory and our gun crime compared to America's is a tiny blip.
People use that guy Cho as a supporting argument for this whole guns-on-campus-thing, but are you crazy or just really ***** stupid? People say "if everyone had a gun, his kill count would have been 50% lower" - well if he didn't have a gun it would have been 100% lower... If you couldn't buy guns so easily in America, do you think a little retarded emo-kid like Cho could have gotten hold of one? In the uk it takes contacts, determination, intelligence and money to get a gun - I'm sure Cho would have had to make do with a bottle of aspirin to fulfill his attention-seeking needs...- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3Possession of any sort of weapon has been tightly regulated and restricted in the UK since the defeat of the Viking kings. God forbid the lower classes be able to resist the nobility and their servants or consider themselves on a par with these worthies and the wealthy. Entirely different cultures, yours being one where you spent a lot of time on your knees in the course of history.
Your suggestion of outlawing firearms here is absurd. Americans are not English sheep. Now who was it who gave your troops firearms after they abandoned most of theirs at Dunkirk? Oh, right, individual Americans sent many, many thousands to arm your secondary and tertiary formations, with some even going to line units. Prohibition didn't end the use of alcohol, and a ban on firearms will not disarm the populace. In fact, any serious attempt to seize privately owned firearms would provoke an armed revolt . . . we are not going to be over-run by criminals and moslem dogs as is now happening in the UK.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3Possession of any sort of weapon has been tightly regulated and restricted in the UK since the defeat of the Viking kings. God forbid the lower classes be able to resist the nobility and their servants or consider themselves on a par with these worthies and the wealthy. Entirely different cultures, yours being one where you spent a lot of time on your knees in the course of history.
- SiliconRain, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2I've heard lots of statistics that directly contradict that link. But fact remains, it's never been legal to own handguns or carry any kind of gun in the street in the UK in living memory and our gun crime compared to America's is a tiny blip.
- badenglishihave, on 04/02/2008, -2/+6Sorry here's the link again: http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com/2007/01/serio ...
- smurfsahoy, on 04/02/2008, -4/+14Us crazy Yanks and our "personal freedoms" and "protections from the government!" When will we learn...
- Enasni1212, on 04/03/2008, -6/+4The idea that guns are necessary to defend us from the government in this day and age is pretty ridiculous. Other gun control arguments notwithstanding, to think that anyone in the general population has a chance against government trained and equipped troops is just silly.
- smurfsahoy, on 04/03/2008, -2/+8Then we need bigger and more plentiful guns and additional training, not fewer guns... You're not making any sense.
If a school bully keeps taking your lunch money and kicking you in the groin every day, you buy a cup, and carry a stick with you as you walk to school, or go in a group, or train yourself. You don't say "Oh well, it's hopeless" and just paint a big target on yourself and pull your pants down for him to make it more convenient to kick you.
I'm very confused about the logic going through your head right now. - smurfsahoy, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Oh I also forgot to mention - there are 300 million US denizens. There are 1.4 million uniformed US soldiers, only a small portion of which are actually equipped to fight in the field (a large majority serve in vital behind the scenes support roles to those troops).
Many support roles amongst the citizenry could be fulfilled by old or weaker people unfit to fight. So the 1/3 of the population that if of ideal fighting age could potentially be free to serve on the front lines. Let's say only 20% of the population actually is willing to take up arms, though in battle.
That would still be 20,000,000 armed citizens (not including support) in battle against maybe 500,000 US military troops in battle. An advantage of 40 to 1. And they don't know who the resistors are. The resistors also intimately know their home terrain, and can far more effectively ambush, etc.
And this is with liberal estimates, and I am assuming that nobody in the army would disobey orders and defect.
Still don't think we have a chance at all? - goldfishey, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1at smufsahoy - well yeah, but its not the guns that make the difference its the numbers and the determination of your revolutionaries. With those numbers you could win with good strategy and pitchforks!
- smurfsahoy, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2@gold, No, you couldn't. Because you would never get those numbers without guns. Wou YOU join a resistance movement if somebody handed you a pitchfork and told you to go take out that M1 tank across the street with it? Hell no. Very good chance of high casualties with almost no chance of success = ***** morale = no recruitment. So even in the (probably unlikely) event that 40 pitchforkers COULD win against each US soldier, without guns to instill a belief that it is possible, you would probably actually be outnumbered. And without guns.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Gee, with 80 million or so gun owners, many of them former military themselves, and the vast majority of the current military pro-2nd Amendment, just how far do you suppose an effort to disarm the populace would go? Any government trying would face resistance which would make Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq look like a walk in the park. Do you have ANY idea how much of the secondary functions are contracted out these days . . . to people who are supporters of the 2nd Amendment? Some fine grit in a tanker of aviation gas . . . ooops. Some rubber balls in the tanks of armored vehicles. Ooops. First thing you know, the troops are pulled off the line to maintain the aircraft and heavy equipment . . . but most of them won't be there.
@ gold and smurf - read the story of the 216th Militia Division in front of Moscow in 1941. They were the last barrier between two fresh panzer divisions and the capital. They were simply factory workers and farmers armed with wrenches, pitchforks and the like. Some grenades, lots of Molotov cocktails. Those raggedy ass bastids fought two SS panzer divisions to a standstill with nothing but courage. Don't EVER discount the courage of a patriot fighting on home turf.
- smurfsahoy, on 04/03/2008, -2/+8Then we need bigger and more plentiful guns and additional training, not fewer guns... You're not making any sense.
- logandurand, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4@Enasni1212: In this day and age, it is more important than ever that people be able to defend themselves from their government. What did Hitler do before he began oppressing minorities? He used the German gun registry to take away their lawfully owned firearms. Then, when he decided to start killing them by the millions, they have no way to defend themselves.
You're flat out lying to yourself if you think this can't (or won't) happen again. For example, from the late 19th to the mid-20th century, the government of the United States forcibly sterilized nearly 60,000 citizens deemed to be "genetically inferior". Hitler even used us as an example when he started doing the same thing in Germany. During World War Two, we forced thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for the government to take land from you and give it to corporations like Wal-Mart, just so that they could make more tax money off of it.
Read a history book before you make uninformed comments like this. Your "it will never happen to us" kind of thinking only makes it easier for evildoers to seize control.- SiliconRain, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You (and just about every other pro-gun moron) are confusing MOVIES and REALITY.
You're not going to start shooting police and the military. If you think your gun gives you freedom then you're an idiot. Your government has got the whole populace so ***** brainwashed anyway that you'd do anything they ***** told you to do. Americans must be the least-free peoples in the developed world, but you're all too happy to wave flags celebrating it and hero-worshiping all the tools of government control.
I don't really give a ***** - you rednecks can shoot each other all you want. But as an academic I find it a little offensive that you want to desecrate places of higher-learning and understanding with your caveman instincts to kill each other. - Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Silicone, as an academic, apparently your English ivory tower isolates entirely you from the reality of American culture and our people. So go pour a sherry and sod off.
- SiliconRain, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1You (and just about every other pro-gun moron) are confusing MOVIES and REALITY.
- Enasni1212, on 04/03/2008, -6/+4The idea that guns are necessary to defend us from the government in this day and age is pretty ridiculous. Other gun control arguments notwithstanding, to think that anyone in the general population has a chance against government trained and equipped troops is just silly.
- bentman78, on 04/02/2008, -1/+7Britain has one of the strictest and one of the highest of industrialized nations. What's your point?
Criminals are going to get guns the way they will do most things...illegally.
It's not saying every student is going to get a gun so quite the hyperbolic *****. Besides even if you take guns away, we still rule the roost with assaults, sexual crimes, and non-gun crimes. A quick look on interpols website will tell you that. - davidrools, on 04/02/2008, -2/+7you sound like all those people who've never shot a firearm before. I lean to the left on most issues except gun control.
- smurfsahoy, on 04/02/2008, -0/+11Gun control shouldn't even be a left right issue. There's no good reason why guns have anything to do with the traditional split between these groups.
- OverlordXenu, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't leaning to the left mean you're against gun control?
No, wait, I'm confusing that with something else. This has nothing to do with left or right. It has everything to do with authoritarian vs. libertarian (in the true sense of the word, not what those insane Ron Paul zealots think it means).
It's a totalitarian vs. anarchist issue, not Communist vs. Facist.
- Treoinmypocket, on 04/02/2008, -3/+12I won't bury you to China because I thought it would be nice for people to read your views - and then confront them with some facts. These a re but a sampling of the worldwide numbers.
I pulled these off a few websites and I didn't bother to cite them because the numbers are so verifiable it doesn't matter what the website was:
While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.
On the east side of the Atlantic, we have the British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006. The UK does not use a calendar-year reporting scheme, but reports on a September-to-September time-frame. (These figures do NOT represent two years' worth of data.) The first problem is that there appear to be two separate figures for the crime rate. If we look at the tables supporting Chapter 5, on Violent Crime, (this is an Excel Workbook) we are told that there was a total of 2,420,000 violent crimes in the time-frame covered by the report. If we take the word of the CIA Factbook the UK had a population of 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.) This gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8. However in Chapter 7, (Table 7a) of the BCS, the total violent crime rate per 1000 inhabitants is listed as 23, which is equivalent to 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants. Even this lower number is an astonishing figure when compared to the US data.
US FlagOn the west side of the Atlantic we have the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Uniform Crime Report for 2005. (2005 is the last year for which the data are not preliminary.) In table 1, we see that in 2005, the violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 469.2.
I recently broke out some of the state-by-state numbers. I repeat them here.
State Violent Crime Rate
per 100,0000 murder rate per
100,000
South Dakota 175.7 2.3
California 526.3 6.9
New York 445.8 4.5
Massachusetts 456.9 2.7
Wisconsin 241.5 3.5
Illinois * 551 6.0
District of Columbia 1459.0 35.4
* Illinois doesn't like to present data to the FBI for inclusion in the Uniform Crime Report. So it is hard to know if the figures for Illinois are low or high. (And yes I know, D.C. is not a state.)
The UK numbers make Washington, D.C. look good.
But then in The Sun Online, in an article: 600 kids mugged each term day we find that the UK numbers do not include crimes against anyone under the age of 16.
Yet the attacks are not included in the Government’s key measure of crime, which IGNORES offences on under-16s. [emphasis in the original]
This ignoring of inconvenient facts is not surprising, given that a 2002 study found that as many as 11 million crimes (some serious) were omitted from the British government's official figures. While some reforms have been enacted, cooking the books seems to still be taking place. (Those 600 muggings per day amount to 113,000 additional crimes every year.)
An interesting comparison of two major metropolitan centers, shows just how far the UK has fallen.
* New York has a population of 8 million, London 7 million
* London's crime rate is about 7 times that of New York
* Police budgets are comparable
* New York has 40% more cops on the beat
* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course.
* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)
* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)
* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)
* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)
* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)
* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)- Katnap, on 04/03/2008, -5/+3Nice copy and paste from a pro gun blog idiot.
You can't compare the two sets of figures for a number of reasons.
Firstly the National Crime Recording System in the UK, used by the police and home office is very different to the the UCR.
Over half of recorded violent crime in the UK results in no injury to anybody, and is made up of verbal threats, harrasement or petty arguments.
Of the other 50% of violent crimes, more than 95% were simple assaults, resulting in very minor injuries, and the remaining 21,000 were recorded as more serious assaults against the person.
Hospital Data reviewed by Cardiff Medical Schools Violence Research Group, has shown a sustained drop in violent crime since 2000, with over 20% less hospital admissions for violent crimes (NHS Accident and Emergency Data).
This data ties in with the British Crime Survey.
It should also be noted that there were 46 gun crime deaths in the UK last year, compared to around 10,000 in America (a country with only five times the population). Whilst the UK Murder rate has had a sustained fall and was around 765 last year (including the London Bombings).
New York alone has around 500 murders, whilst London's rate has also dropped to around 160 murders a year.
Serious Violent crime in the UK has being falling,
and other crimes such as burgulary and car crime have more than halved in the last 10 years.
It seems to me that Americans are trying to scapegoat Britain, a relatively safe country, with few murders, (especially when compared to the 17,000 in the US last year) in order to justify high levels of gun ownership.- Treoinmypocket, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3I said i copied and pasted as an example - all research shows pretty much the same story. Also, you rnumbers don't include those under age 18 in Great Britain where the US numbers do.
- breezytrees, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2sources katnap?
- Katnap, on 04/03/2008, -1/+0http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/17_07_0 ...
British Crime Survey, 2007. - Parapadrifter, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3ya know .... how many gun deaths in Britian are caused by innercity gangs? I doubt many.... what we have in America is gang violence... say it with me.. gang violence.
I'd like to know how many gun incidences are caused by license holders.
- Katnap, on 04/03/2008, -1/+0http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/17_07_0 ...
- rawheadrex, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1
>>* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)
>>* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)
(SNIP)
>>* Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
>>Florida United States
>>homicide rate -36% -0.4%
>>firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
>>handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
So, as your own numbers show, increasing the number of states having right-to-carry laws from 9 to 31 between '86 and '98, from a national point of view, did little (likely within the margin of error) to lower the homicide rate, while substantially increasing firearm and handgun homicide rates. Yup, smart move.
- Katnap, on 04/03/2008, -5/+3Nice copy and paste from a pro gun blog idiot.
- vervalsing, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5Is the only reason YOU don't shoot people at random because you don't have a gun? Do you honestly think that the Cho Seung-Hui's of the world are going to plan mass murder, see a sign that says "NO GUNS ON CAMPUS" and go "Oh well then, I don't want to break any rules. I'll just go someplace where everyone is allowed to carry a gun, that way I won't get in trouble".
- psa21, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Everyone in the ghetto has guns... no crime there.
Why fight for the right to carry around a gun that you're not going to shoot?
sounds like retarded rednecks masturbating about 'freedom' again.- Parapadrifter, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1maybe we should just outlaw guns to *****?
When tyranny comes you will be thankful to have your redneck brethren... we will fight an die for you junglefreaks.
- Parapadrifter, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1maybe we should just outlaw guns to *****?
- Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2In the UK, a victim is prosecuted for taking even passive measures of self defense, such as a barbed wire barrier around the home. A criminal can attack a home owner, but even raising a golf club in self-defense puts him / her at odds with the law. Yeah, I sure would love to live somewhere the criminals have more rights than the victims . . . UK, Chicago, whatever. /* SARCASM
In any event, it is NOT "more guns," "retard." it is simply allowing those who are qualified and choose to carry firearms to do so.
- badenglishihave, on 04/02/2008, -3/+6The problem isn't necessarily seen in the gun crime rate but rather the overall crime rate. For example, it makes logical sense that a burglar is less likely to break into a house if he knows that there may be a gun owner inside.
- unreg, on 04/02/2008, -30/+46College students, alcohol, raging hormones, guns. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
- OverlordXenu, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4You idiot, it's not every college student. It's 21yo's and older that have licenses (and thus have taken gun safety courses).
Are you telling me that adults don't have wild parties? - mystaker, on 04/03/2008, -3/+6Ageism, stereotypes, poor reasoning. Sounds like a recipe for success.
- Parapadrifter, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2raging hormones are prominent in highschoolers *****
- OverlordXenu, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4You idiot, it's not every college student. It's 21yo's and older that have licenses (and thus have taken gun safety courses).
- makenshin, on 04/02/2008, -9/+34Many people are less likely to commit a crime if they think the people around them might be packing. Think, in a bank, 2 bank robbers with guns and 30+ customers/employees with guns. Chances are, if they believed that to be the scenario, they would not rob the bank in the first place, unless maybe they had a bomb. to take out themselves and everyone else, but that person would be more dangerous if others didnt have guns.
Traditionally in the past of america, there were times when everyone owned a gun, many of which carried them around. If early americans didnt have guns, the US would have never been, it'd still be under the control of England probably. Even nowdays, if US citizens are disarmed entirely, it wouldnt take much effort to enslave and control us (a very common method for controlling your citizens, both in the past and in the modern world)- wellyuk, on 04/02/2008, -13/+7More or less all of Western Europe doesn't allow it's citizens to own a gun (of any significance). I don't recall an occasion where Western European governments have gone enslaving and controlling it's citizens.
Take off that tinfoil hat, will you?- huszar02, on 04/02/2008, -0/+11Well, if you don't include the Nazis or the Soviets, the latter of which only ceased to exist 20 years ago, I guess your point stands.
- Grym11, on 04/02/2008, -0/+12Tinfoil hat? Jesus man... In case you missed the history lesson, the Nazis and the death camps of Germany (which is in Western Europe, if you missed the Geography lesson too), in the grand scheme of things, were all but a blink of an eye ago.
Do you really think that humanity has progressed to the point where such atrocities are not possible anymore? What about our current world and society makes you think you can ascribe such blind trust into governments?- wellyuk, on 04/02/2008, -10/+2I stand corrected about Germany (fair point), however that said I do believe we've progressed significantly since 1945. I think that in this day and age, should any western nation government start enslaving their citizens, they'd be beaten down before they even got started. The European government is far too strong to let something such as Nazi Germany happen again.
- Mothrog, on 04/02/2008, -0/+7wellyuk, you're more than welcome to try that little experiment and see how it turns out for you, just don't force me to go along with you.
- makenshin, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Everyone makes valid points, and Nazi Germany was one part of the point, but for some reason everyone seems focused on the Western Europe (you all even mention it). I don't believe my statement mentioned any specific part of the world, it is a large planet and things that are today can change easily tomorrow.
- Djupblue, on 04/03/2008, -3/+3So what are you going to do with your gun against the government? It has more guns, tanks and bombs than any one of you. What you need to defend yourself against a corrupt leader i the courage to stand up to them at the first sign of violating your rights. The path you (USA) are on now is frightening because it is so similar to Germany before the war and if you keep it up owning a thousand guns will still leave you helpless.
(Non native speaker of English)- makenshin, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Also a very good point; citizens against an oppressive government who has the army as one of their resources is difficult to defend one's freedoms against. In large part, you have to depend on defectors and other soldiers doing the right thing and defending the people against the government. Not that it would work per say, but still a possibility.
And I am glad you brought up the current path of the USA; that is why I feel the way I do about the right to bare arms. The lucky ones in that situation, are the ones who 'jumped the fence' out of the country when all ability to defend one's self and family is taken away.
(as an end note, tanks and stuff are a possibility, but I would hope one's own country would avoid nuking parts of it, as that would make that territory unusable to them if they had plans to rule over it.) - Mothrog, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Why don't you go see how well the US military, probably the largest and most advanced in the world, is doing against assholes with guns and crude bombs in Iraq? Seems like a few guys with guns are pretty damned effective to me.
- makenshin, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Also a very good point; citizens against an oppressive government who has the army as one of their resources is difficult to defend one's freedoms against. In large part, you have to depend on defectors and other soldiers doing the right thing and defending the people against the government. Not that it would work per say, but still a possibility.
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Inded. In fact, I have heard it reported that subjects of the United Kingdom are in fact Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes.
- barius, on 04/02/2008, -2/+6Your hypothetical situation is different from the school shootings. Bank robbers are trying to make money, the students going crazy at schools are there just to shoot up the place and are likely already suicidal anyways. Giving guns to all the students might stop a crazy shooter before they kill as many people, but the number incidents is likely to rise as can be statistically shown by the relative number of shootings in countries where guns are banned.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Please . . . WHERE did anyone say ANYTHING about "(g)iving guns to all the students" ?? The entire topic regards (a) those *legally able* to have a CCW, which precludes most undergraduates, who (b) *choose* to obtain a CCW (typically about 2% of those eligible) being allowed to do so on campus. Either you've paid no attention to the discussion or you are intentionally trying to sensationalize things - a common ploy of the hoplophobe.
- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -3/+4I can think of a few "wild west" bandits that seemed to do very will in the age of "anyone can own a gun." They didn't really seem that afraid of killing everyone at the bank before stealing all the money. Granted, almost all of them are killed eventually... but the point is that crime is not deterred just because other people have guns. The element of surprise is enough to take out a room if you plan it right.
- makenshin, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Yes, I did think of the wild west when i posted this, and that is a point I am glad you brought up. It is not always effective. in those scenarios, you would need a decent number of people to have guns, know how to use them and not be afraid to do so when the situation deems it neccesary. Obviously if someone gets the jump on people (surprise attack), they have an advantage. Even in my bank scenario above, if everyone did fight back, changes are more people on the side of 'good' would die than the quantity of robbers, especially if they are no robbers, but just going in there to shoot the place up. Another instance, consider bonnie and clyde like case, chances are they would have been stopped much sooner if they had half the town shooting at them from the start than just the cops.
I do agree and honestly wish that it would be great if no one needed guns and it was a perfect world and always would be, but since it's not, I feel that the right to bear arms should be respected. Obviously I do not think average citizens should be running around with military grade weaponry, but they should at least have access to basic weaponry if they so wish to do so for their own protection. - Mothrog, on 04/03/2008, -0/+5You might want to try getting your history from something other than movies. In reality, the Wild West wasn't particularly wild. Even the infamous Dodge City averaged only 1.5 murders per year, and all the large Kansas cattle towns combined only had 45 murders over a 15 year period. Try again.
http://www.mises.org/story/1449 - whatever01, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1Pretty violent, actually....
http://volokh.com/posts/1188076990.shtml
"Because the counties in McKanna’s study reflect the diversity of rural southern and central California as a whole, there is reason to believe that the homicide rate in the southern two-thirds of the state (excluding San Francisco) was between 66 and 80 per 100,000 adults per year—the 99% confidence interval for McKanna’s seven counties combined. If we include San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, the interval for all of southern and central California was between 60 and 70 per 100,000 adults per year—seven times the homicide rate in the United States today (and 28.7 standard deviations away). An adult exposed to that rate for sixteen years stood a 1 in 96 chance of being murdered, and an adult exposed to that rate for 45 years would have stood a 1 in 34 chance of being murdered. We cannot make assumptions about the homicide rate in northern California, which has yet to be studied. But with McKanna’s study alone, we have 29 percent of the population of southern and central California (38 percent outside San Francisco); and with the addition of Mullen’s study of San Francisco and Monkkonen’s of Los Angeles, we have 57 percent of the population. The claim that the area was not unusually homicidal is statistically and arithmetically impossible." - Iconoclast25, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1cr - there are SO many variables in clearing a room - particularly cover, possibility of returned fire, it is invalid to make such a sweeping assertion. Absent automatic weapons in the hands of the assailant (incredibly unlikely) _and_ flash-bang grenades (only slightly less improbable), the possibility of a potential victim fighting back are very good.
- makenshin, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2Yes, I did think of the wild west when i posted this, and that is a point I am glad you brought up. It is not always effective. in those scenarios, you would need a decent number of people to have guns, know how to use them and not be afraid to do so when the situation deems it neccesary. Obviously if someone gets the jump on people (surprise attack), they have an advantage. Even in my bank scenario above, if everyone did fight back, changes are more people on the side of 'good' would die than the quantity of robbers, especially if they are no robbers, but just going in there to shoot the place up. Another instance, consider bonnie and clyde like case, chances are they would have been stopped much sooner if they had half the town shooting at them from the start than just the cops.
- wellyuk, on 04/02/2008, -13/+7More or less all of Western Europe doesn't allow it's citizens to own a gun (of any significance). I don't recall an occasion where Western European governments have gone enslaving and controlling it's citizens.
- hackiavelli, on 04/02/2008, -5/+34By that logic police officers would never get shot.
- huszar02, on 04/02/2008, -2/+12Only a very small number are actually shot every year, and most people know they have guns and don't want a piece of that. Car accidents are more likely to kill cops.
- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -6/+18As far as putting a gun in the hands of students.. I can't say that it wouldn't have helped this situation. I concede that in this instance, it may have been beneficial for another student to put a bullet in the head of that lunatic before he hurt more people. I won't go as far as saying that it definitely would have helped, as you claim, but that's just my opinion.
Since I am sympathetic to your argument, hear me out before responding. Kids can be reckless and short-sighted. Drunk 19-21 year old kids who (a) fear they will be beat up, or (b) think someone "deserves it" will get their guns conveniently laying in their top drawers, and approach confrontations with their fingers on the triggers... just like gang fights. Is that really better than feeling helpless on the rare occasion that someone goes nuts and starts firing a weapon on campus? There is no denying that arming untrained students will cause collateral damage, there can't be a single argument that denies this. The discussion here is whether or not the collateral damage worth the possibility of being able to stop a rare, larger incident. I happen to think not, but again that's just my opinion.- yoda133113, on 04/02/2008, -5/+8WHOA who said anything about arming untrained students. In all the states that require a permit (Alaska and Vermont don't) getting a concealed handgun permit requires going to at least one gun safety class. In addition if you are buying your gun legally there's a decent chance that the gun store owner will make sure you at least know the basics. The concept here isn't to give a gun to all the kids, it's to allow the ones that already have Concealed Carry permits to carry at school.
- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -3/+7Haha, gun safety class. I'm sure they turn out Navy Seal quality students. Also, you're wrong about the difficulty in buying a gun. Just in the past 2 years, Bloomberg alone has worked to shut down around 30 out of state shops selling guns to anyone who walks in the door. That doesn't happen in New York, because the laws are enforced. As I've said in another post, I'm not against the second amendment, I'm against the reckless, illegal sale of guns.
- Mothrog, on 04/02/2008, -3/+3"I'm against the reckless, illegal sale of guns."
And how exactly are you going to stop those? Passing more laws? Guns are as difficult to get illegally as pot. - johnfredson, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3Enforce current laws. The VTech shooter should not have been able to get a gun under current state law. There was just a disconnect between the agencies responsible for notifying the system of mental status.
- Iconoclast25, on 04/04/2008, -0/+2All mikey bombast did was break all kinds of Federal felony laws. Like most left wingers, he was not charged, but as I recall he had bankrolled dozens of straw purchases . . . each is five to ten in the Federal pen + $10K fine (small change, of course, for bombast). And the left cheered him for it. The dealers who sold firearms to his undercover agents were victims of a variety of misrepresentations and each buyer cleared the Federal database. They followed the law - bombast and his minions did not. Then he sued them. Single proprieterships, small businesses, versus the tax power of NYC and a multi-billionaire douchebag. They didn't have the resources to defend those cases.
As a hunter safety instructor and former NRA firearms (rifle and handgun) instructor, those classes teach far more than the average psycho or gang banger will ever know about firearms. The people who complete these courses know when they should draw their weapon and typically CCW holders go to the range on a regular basis.
- Mothrog, on 04/02/2008, -3/+3"I'm against the reckless, illegal sale of guns."
- crweaks23, on 04/02/2008, -3/+7Haha, gun safety class. I'm sure they turn out Navy Seal quality students. Also, you're wrong about the difficulty in buying a gun. Just in the past 2 years, Bloomberg alone has worked to shut down around 30 out of state shops selling guns to anyone who walks in the door. That doesn't happen in New York, because the laws are enforced. As I've said in another post, I'm not against the second amendment, I'm against the reckless, illegal sale of guns.
- logandurand, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4Sorry, but people with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit violent crimes than people without them. According to a 2000 study, permit owners are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.
- jjohnstn, on 04/03/2008, -0/+518+ is considered an adult. In most if not all states you must be at least 21 years of age to apply for a concealed carry permit.
- yoda133113, on 04/02/2008, -5/+8WHOA who said anything about arming untrained students. In all the states that require a permit (Alaska and Vermont don't) getting a concealed handgun permit requires going to at least one gun safety class. In addition if you are buying your gun legally there's a decent chance that the gun store owner will make sure you at least know the basics. The concept here isn't to give a gun to all the kids, it's to allow the ones that already have Concealed Carry permits to carry at school.
- daggah, on 04/02/2008, -11/+21If students had guns, then yeah, Cho probably would have been stopped a lot sooner. However, you'd have more gun incidents overall. So you'd have less big shootings but a lot more small ones.
I think the gun nuts are overreacting.
(By the way...liberal here, but I feel the second amendment was put in for a reason. I don't like guns but I don't think they should be illegal overall. I don't think it should be ridiculously easy to get them either though...)- moush, on 04/03/2008, -5/+1Or Cho could have had his shooting on an earlier day because he had one less thing to worry about.
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -5/+5'"So you'd have less big shootings but a lot more small ones."
Please justify this assertion.- daggah, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Isn't it obvious? More guns = more gun use.
And guns really only have one use, don't they?- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3I would prefer to rely upon demonstable fact rather than an assertion of a claim being "obvious".
For example, more than half of the states in the United States allow civilians to carry deadly weapons through, at most restrictive, a "shall-issue" based permit system, yet no evidence exists that this allowance has resulted in a significant increase in the number of illegal shootings within those states. - daggah, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1And then you would claim bias if I found a source that agrees. You know, I never really felt strongly about gun control...but after spending some time in the last week reading both sides of the argument I find the pro-guns/anti-gun control crowd to be almost rabid in their defense. Everything from flawed statistics to angry ranting if one even suggests making training mandatory. That's what bothers me about that crowd. What is so horrible about education and training? I'm in the Air Force and even the USAF conducts a decent amount of weapons training...
- Randrayla, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1Because the constitution states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Not: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed if you take a mandatory 50 hour training class"
- Dimensio, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3I would prefer to rely upon demonstable fact rather than an assertion of a claim being "obvious".
- daggah, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Isn't it obvious? More guns = more gun use.
- logandurand, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4All available information shows that people with carry permits are less likely to commit violent crimes. For example, in Florida, between 1987 and 1999, over half a million concealed carry permits were issued - only 0.02% of them were revoked. According to a 2000 study, permit owners are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent crime than the general public.
- breezytrees, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2I'd love to believe this as fact. Source? what study?
- rawheadrex, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah-huh. And how many of those firearms owned by permit-holders were abused by
- Iconoclast25, on 04/02/2008, -24/+177It seems almost certain his first two victims (in the dorm) would not have been saved and it is probable he would have assaulted some in the class building before students / faculty with CCWs could react, but I would bet my life the death toll would have been reduced by 50 to 90%.