guns on college campuses?

[Jeffy25]

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?p=1281288

I didn't say closet full, I said where it is kept. It's a simple hand gun, and if someone breaks into my place of residence with my sleeping family and they are armed, they are toast...and broke into the wrong house...I am not going to expect anyone else to take responsiblity and try and protect my family....it is my job as a father....if the police could do it, then I would support that, but that isn't the reality of the situation

[filihok]

Why shouldn't people be able to defend themselves, as well, though?

No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves.

[Jeffy25]

No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves.

then what the hell are we debating?

that's the point in having a gun...protection....and maybe hunting with limitiations...there is no other reason a person should or want to own a gun....

and if they want one just because they are "cool" then they are idiots and deserve to die by the blade of their own sword

EDIT-ok, that was harsh, but still

[Jeffy25]

wasn't this debate about college kids having them? if everyday adult Americans can have them, then shouldn't adult college students? hell they already do...why take the right when they aren't consistantly taking advantage up the opportunity?

[HoustonGM]

If I am breaking into a house and the guy is unarmed I am not going to shoot him...

You might not. Other criminals might.

criminals should have guns because the average joe has guns....

It's actually the other way around.

What you are advocating for is a society where the only people with guns are the government and the criminals. In my ideal society, nobody would have guns. Unfortunately, that's a utopian ideal. In the real world, there's two options - allow law-abiding citizens to own guns, or create a society where guns are outlawed, and the only people with guns are outlaws.

[BINGLEBOP]

i'm torn on this one.

on one hand, should licensed adults be permitted to carry a gun to protect themselves from deranged individuals who try to martyr themselves on school yards on what seems like a yearly basis?

on the other hand, do we want a bunch of guns on a campus where already an escalated amount of drugs & alcohol abuse, and crimes such as theft and rape take place?

its easy to say option #2 is better, guns lead to violence.....but then again, if that wacko in VT knows he'll be meeting armed college students he likely isn't going in there and there likely isn't dozens of parents with dead children.

I'm late to the thread, but definitely #1. The only policy that has ever been shown to deter mass murder is concealed-carry laws. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60% and reduced injury and death from the attacks by nearly 80%.

Mass murders at "gun-free zones":

• The deranged student killing 32 people in Virginia Tech before killing himself
• The Amish school shooting in 2006, where the killer murdered five little girls before killing himself
• Columbine in 1999 where the two guys killed 12 people before committing suicide
• Two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killing five people, including four little girls, before deciding to attempt to escape
• Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, when an adult shooter killed 17 and then committed suicide.

There was no one to stop any of these people. I'd love if we lived in a society where this never happened, but it's the less than 1% of people with easy accessibility to guns that engages in rampant killings. The remainder of the (over) 99% of people seem to get along just fine. It's not as if we're going off shooting everybody just because we have guns. The fact that guns can kill human beings is the whole point and the reason why they're good at deterring violent criminals. Compare the above situations with school shootings where a law-abiding citizen had a gun at the scene:

In 2001, the shooting at the high school in Santee, California. The student began shooting at his classmates and the school activated its "safe-school plan", which unfortunately did not involve anybody having a gun at the school. The school sent in an unarmed trained campus supervisor to stop the killer. The killer shot the "trained campus supervisor". Luckily, a San Diego policeman who was armed was bringing his daughter to school that day. He stopped the killer (with a gun) and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Only two died. I say "only" simply because it could have been worse.

In 2002, an immigrant student in Virginia started shooting classmates at the Appalachian School of Law. Two classmates in another part of the building retrieved guns from their cars, approached the killer, and forced him to drop his weapon, while a third classmate tackled him until police arrived.

Three died.

A student at Pearl High School in Mississippi had already shot several people at his high school in 1997 and was headed for the junior high school when the assistant principal retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two died.

A student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, started shooting, but the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant, and captured him for the police.

One died.

Again, I wish these situations never happened or that they'll never happen to me (or my family). Some people choose to look at the entire world with rose-colored glasses and choose blissfully ignorant over the reality of the world. However, I'm never going to take that chance, which is why I'll be armed. It's a "just in case" scenario for the small fraction of people that choose to break the law and go off killing other people. I'm not going to become a victim just because they decided to break the law. Even if all firearms were banned, criminals would still gain access to them, and then I'm ****ed. I'm going to protect myself and my loved ones. I'd question anybody's love for their family who wouldn't choose that option. Baseball bats and dogs are nice, but no match for a maniac with a gun.

[HoustonGM]

The Supreme Court, in overturning the handgun ban did something quite un-American (though growing more popular every day) it took away the people's right to choose.

You could make the argument than since the ban took away people's right to choose, overturning it was NOT "un-American" if "American" is defined as "freedom."

No one is saying that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves.

Saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns IS saying they shouldn't be able to adequately defend themselves against people with guns.

wasn't this debate about college kids having them? if everyday adult Americans can have them, then shouldn't adult college students? hell they already do...why take the right when they aren't consistantly taking advantage up the opportunity?

I think everybody (that believes in the right to own guns) would agree that adult college students should be allowed to own guns. The issue is whether those guns should be allowed on campus. While I believe that people should be allowed to own guns, I also believe that there are places where people should not be allowed to carry their weapon.

[RickD]

you know what, i have changed on this issue over the years. I used to be a extreme, pro-gun, vocal supporter of the right to have as many weapons as you want.

Then I grew up....and traveled the world, and saw the results of the average joe having a gun, and the devastation caused by these weapons. I saw the senseless violence happening in high schools, the guys who go crazy and start firing into the streets, killing innocent by standers.

I have no problem with cops and the military having weapons. I have no problem with a hunter having a gun and hunting for food. I am TOTALLY 100% against the crinminals and the average joes having guns.

[HoustonGM]

Then I grew up....and traveled the world, and saw the results of the average joe having a gun, and the devastation caused by these weapons. I saw the senseless violence happening in high schools, the guys who go crazy and start firing into the streets, killing innocent by standers.

What you claim to have witnessed was not a result of the average joe having a gun. The average joe with a gun is not a murderer. You witnessed the result of criminals having guns. Do you think that preventing the average joe, who is a law-abiding citizen, from owning a weapon will stop criminals from shooting people?

I have no problem with cops and the military having weapons. I have no problem with a hunter having a gun and hunting for food. I am TOTALLY 100% against the crinminals and the average joes having guns.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but if you ban guns for the criminals and the average joes, the criminals will still have guns...and then what does the average joe do?

[BINGLEBOP]

I'd use the common Baseball Mogul phrase and tell you it's "sample size". The VAST MAJORITY of law-abiding citizens ("average joes" if you will) are not engaging in the gun violence that you talk about. I'm sorry that you've seen so much violence first-hand, but it's a small percentage of the big picture. I'm sure there are certain war zones in the world that are uncontrolled anarchy and chaos, but that's not the norm.

And even if you are totally 100% against the criminals having guns (which I would be too), they're still going to get them regardless of what any of us think. And again, I don't want myself or my family to be a victim.

[filihok]

You could make the argument than since the ban took away people's right to choose, overturning it was NOT "un-American" if "American" is defined as "freedom."

Incorrect. it is impossible to live in the United States in a 'gun free' area.

The only way that there can be choice is to allow BOTH gun-zones and non-gun-zones.

As it is, there are only gun-zones. Hence, no choice.

Saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns IS saying they shouldn't be able to adequately defend themselves against people with guns.

Should citizens be allowed to posses the same armament as our government? The Constitution states that we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to oppose our armed government.

Expecting the citizenry to defend itself against the US military with currently legal weaponry is much less adequate than expecting an individual to defend themselves without a fire arm against a person with one.

[HoustonGM]

Incorrect. it is impossible to live in the United States in a 'gun free' area.

The only way that there can be choice is to allow BOTH gun-zones and non-gun-zones.

As it is, there are only gun-zones. Hence, no choice.

As I said, the argument CAN be made that, as a FREE country, Americans, wherever they live, should have the right to choose whether they want to own a gun or not. It is not incorrect that that argument can be made.

The Constitution states that we have the right to keep and bear arms in order to oppose our armed government.

According to your interpretation.

Opposing the armed government is one reason that the citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. It is NOT the only reason.

However, this is all completely beside the point. The original topic was simply - should people be allowed to carry guns on college campuses? That shifted to - should people be allowed to own guns?

I'm arguing that yes, people should be allowed to own a gun. I'm not getting into the ins and outs of which guns, etc. I don't know anything about guns. I simply do not believe that the regular citizen should be completely barred from owning a gun. If you want to disagree with me on that, fine, but I'd prefer to not drag the discussion elsewhere.

[Jeffy25]

I'm late to the thread, but definitely #1. The only policy that has ever been shown to deter mass murder is concealed-carry laws. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60% and reduced injury and death from the attacks by nearly 80%.

Mass murders at "gun-free zones":

• The deranged student killing 32 people in Virginia Tech before killing himself
• The Amish school shooting in 2006, where the killer murdered five little girls before killing himself
• Columbine in 1999 where the two guys killed 12 people before committing suicide
• Two students in Craighead County, Arkansas, killing five people, including four little girls, before deciding to attempt to escape
• Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, when an adult shooter killed 17 and then committed suicide.

There was no one to stop any of these people. I'd love if we lived in a society where this never happened, but it's the less than 1% of people with easy accessibility to guns that engages in rampant killings. The remainder of the (over) 99% of people seem to get along just fine. It's not as if we're going off shooting everybody just because we have guns. The fact that guns can kill human beings is the whole point and the reason why they're good at deterring violent criminals. Compare the above situations with school shootings where a law-abiding citizen had a gun at the scene:

In 2001, the shooting at the high school in Santee, California. The student began shooting at his classmates and the school activated its "safe-school plan", which unfortunately did not involve anybody having a gun at the school. The school sent in an unarmed trained campus supervisor to stop the killer. The killer shot the "trained campus supervisor". Luckily, a San Diego policeman who was armed was bringing his daughter to school that day. He stopped the killer (with a gun) and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Only two died. I say "only" simply because it could have been worse.

In 2002, an immigrant student in Virginia started shooting classmates at the Appalachian School of Law. Two classmates in another part of the building retrieved guns from their cars, approached the killer, and forced him to drop his weapon, while a third classmate tackled him until police arrived.

Three died.

A student at Pearl High School in Mississippi had already shot several people at his high school in 1997 and was headed for the junior high school when the assistant principal retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two died.

A student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, started shooting, but the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant, and captured him for the police.

One died.

Again, I wish these situations never happened or that they'll never happen to me (or my family). Some people choose to look at the entire world with rose-colored glasses and choose blissfully ignorant over the reality of the world. However, I'm never going to take that chance, which is why I'll be armed. It's a "just in case" scenario for the small fraction of people that choose to break the law and go off killing other people. I'm not going to become a victim just because they decided to break the law. Even if all firearms were banned, criminals would still gain access to them, and then I'm ****ed. I'm going to protect myself and my loved ones. I'd question anybody's love for their family who wouldn't choose that option. Baseball bats and dogs are nice, but no match for a maniac with a gun.

Bingle, well said.

I am starting to think fili just wants to let communities make the choice...I respect that...but I will be living in a "guns allowed to me zone"

[filihok]

Bingle, well said.

Anyone could go through and find instances of individual gun owners who shot an innocent person as well.

I am starting to think fili just wants to let communities make the choice...I respect that...but I will be living in a "guns allowed to me zone"

Where'd you get that idea?

2) I'm not 'pro-gun' nor am I 'anti-gun'. I think that communities should be given the choice. If a community decides for itself that it wants to be gun free (as DC did) then that should be respected. The Supreme Court, in overturning the handgun ban did something quite un-American (though growing more popular every day) it took away the people's right to choose.

[Jeffy25]

Anyone could go through and find instances of individual gun owners who shot an innocent person as well.

I wasn't referring to his examples, i was referring to the way he said his point of view...and backed it with a handful of examples, there are many examples that back both sides....if there weren't, then this wouldn't be a discussion