What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Remember after the viginia tech shooting, a lot of pro-gunner's were advocating allowing college students to be armed in school. When whats-his-name went on that shooting spree the students were essentially helpless, thus it's argued that a school full of armed students could have taken him down and stopped the whole massacre.

One guy on CNN argued against this, saying "yeah, and how many students would have been killed in the crossfire?". Personally I think that's a stupid argument. There's a decent chance that nobody would be killed, that a few students would blow him away incident-free. But even assuming students are killed the crossfire (which is absolutely possible), you can't tell me the cross-fire would have killed 32 students, the number the shooter managed to kill while they were defenseless. Accidential deaths during the shootout simply cannot number as high as purposeful deaths by an unopposed shooter, that's just rediculous.
Personally, I believe in the Virginia tech shooting an armed student body would have been very beneficial.


On the other hand, what about the rest of the shootout-free days? Is it really sensible to allow a bunch of testosterone-pumped 20 something guys to carry lethal weapons? I wonder how many dorm-room fights there have been where students have completely lost their temper and fought one another. What if once in a while some of those students, blinded by rage, lost their temper and whipped out their handgun and shot the guy they found in bed with his girlfriend, or stole his stash, whatever? What if handgun carrying makes students more inclined to form gangs? Commit crimes? Rob one another? Lose their temper and pull it on a professor that just failed them?

For me, there's no easy answer, at least no answer that's absolutely right or wrong. I thought a compromise might be to arm just the instructors and give them proper weapons training, so at least somebody can offer protection. Or even better yet, pay for a few armed guards in the hallways (but you can bet that would put the already too-high tuitition up).

I have no firm stance either way, but I'm probably least inclined to give guns to the students. What are you opinions on the matter?

[guitar_player882006]

I'll give you my stance on it, I think that if a student has legally obtained a concealed carry license he should be able to carry on campus. That means (at least in my state) that you have nothing more on your record than traffic stops, no drug charges, assualt, robbery, that kinda stuff. You have been trained to carry a concealed handgun. Last you have to be 21 or older to obtain this license. One of the biggest arguments I hear against this is that college kids aren't mature enough to carry a weapon. Myself and a few people I know at school are pursuing getting their license, these are not kids to go out party get drunk and become belligerent. They are the ones that are very mature, and always stay on top of their homework. The only thing I have a problem with, is staying in a dorm. There would have to be very strict rules with keeping a gun in your dorm room. Such as if it isn't on your person it's in a safe that is secured to the floor. Anyone interested in this can visit this site Students for Concealed Carry on Campus - ConcealedCampus.com (http://concealedcampus.org/) These are just my two cents.

[Zimzum]

Schools should be for scholars, not thugs. Increasing campus security would be a more effective solution then allowing ill trained people to walk around armed. And the liability a college would face should a "miss understanding" happen. Those who do not have police or military training should leave the guns at the door while in school.

[guitar_player882006]

Ok, I agree that school should be for scholars, and not thugs. Though I would hardly call an upstanding citizen that refuses to become a victim a thug. I come from a very large campus, at least 50 buildings maybe more. It is just unreasonable to think that a university can effectively protect each and everyone one of these buildings. That would take a security force of at least 100 guards. While I do think that students with a ccw should be able to carry on campus, I don't think it's gonna happen anytime soon. A more acceptable option would be to let proffesors who have recieved training carry a weapon while in school. At least this would offer some deterrent to a would be shooter. The tragedy at Virginia Tech lasted for over two and half hours, because the shooter ran into no opposition. All the students, and faculty could do was pray that the shooter didn't come to their room. I would feel so much safer in class if I knew that there were students or faculty that were armed.

[medicinal]

I have a carry permit, but you aren't allowed to carry at schools. I'm with the armed guard crowd. The school police in Nev. are allowed to carry, I think some of the high schools even have metal detecters.

[Mr. Bubbles]

I think it would cause more problems than it would solve. Instead of letting them carry guns, make it harder to get guns onto campus.

[birdgirl73]

I'm against armed college students more than anything because of the evidence that the brain and impulse control of people at that age are still forming until they're in their early and mid-20s. Most college kids aren't at a level of maturity or impulse control where I feel they're ready to be packing heat.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Everybody has made solid arguments so far. I guess I'll have to go with the plan B me and my friend sometimes imagine.... letting everyone carry samurai swords!:D

[Torog]

Howdy Gandalf,

I'm with guitar-player on this issue..if I can go into the military at 17 and be trained to carry a weapon,then I think that we should demand that the students be at least mature enough to be responsible with a firearm.

When I went to highschool in the 70's,we were allowed to bring guns to school,we just had to keep em locked up in the trunk,that's how much trust our school officials had in us to be mature and responsible with firearms.

We need to bring back firearms safety and competition courses,and colleges need to stop kicking ROTC off of the campus's.

Have a good one ! :)

[epxroot]

My personal opinion is, I think every man, and women old enough to carry a firearm should be able to, it is one of our rights. I hear a lot of arguments comming from people who are saying it is dangerous, and that some are not mature enough. If everyone is carrying a firearm, I can gaurantee that violence will be reduced. People are going to think a lot more if they know that the other person is carrying also. We have the right to protect ourselves, and we are denied that right. Guns kill no-one only stupid people with guns do, and if we all pack I am sure them stupid people would be wiped out. We have allowed our government and everyone else out there against this to tell us we are not mature enough? Come on I don't need any politician to protect me, or to say "Jason I just don't think you are mature enough to carry that firearm. Oh and I also see you have a felony for taking pain killers when you were in high school...denied". Disarming america is not going to do anything but give the people who are carrying to abuse those who are not.

[Zimzum]

This is evolution, the monkey, man, then the gun. - M. Manson

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Torog and Epxroot, you both make some very good points. This expands our discussion (and lets agree to allow it to expand) to the issue of letting individual's carry firearms anywhere. I haven't done enough research to have a confidently firm stance, but I'm definately more inclined to say people should be allowed to carry guns on their person.

From every report I've checked out, states that allow you to carry a firearm have lower incidences of murder's and robberies. I agree that many muggers, robbers, home-invaders, and murderers might think twice when the whole public isn't a group full of victims ripe for the picking. More and more in our schools, in our government, in nearly every aspect of our increasingly government-controlled society people are being taut to be disempowered. We're supposed to be 100% dependant on big brother to protect us; call the police, tell a teacher, alert an authority, rat out your friends. Well in the real world the authorities can't be at every corner ready to protect you, and there comes a time in everybody's life when you have to protect yourself.

[guitar_player882006]

We need to bring back firearms safety and competition courses,and colleges need to stop kicking ROTC off of the campus's.
:)

My dad told me stories of when he was in high school (1956-1960) they had REQUIRED gun safety courses, and that there was a shooting range in the school. From there he became an NRA instructor at a local YMCA that also had it's own shooting range. I think one of the biggest problems today is that kids just don't respect firearms. Personally I was raised with them, I had my first bb gun at the age of 10. When I turned 12 I recieved my grandfathers Gamo .22 air rifle. Then at 14 I recieved my first firearm a ruger single six .22. Now I'm 19, and have aquired quite a collection for myself. I have the up most respect for them, and understand their power. Also thanks for the support Torog! I'm glad to say that my university has it's own ROTC program and a shooting range on campus.

[Torog]

My dad told me stories of when he was in high school (1956-1960) they had REQUIRED gun safety courses, and that there was a shooting range in the school. From there he became an NRA instructor at a local YMCA that also had it's own shooting range. I think one of the biggest problems today is that kids just don't respect firearms. Personally I was raised with them, I had my first bb gun at the age of 10. When I turned 12 I recieved my grandfathers Gamo .22 air rifle. Then at 14 I recieved my first firearm a ruger single six .22. Now I'm 19, and have aquired quite a collection for myself. I have the up most respect for them, and understand their power. Also thanks for the support Torog! I'm glad to say that my university has it's own ROTC program and a shooting range on campus.

Howdy guitar,

You must be a Ruger fan..thought I recognized yer avatar..Ruger makes lots of good weapons. :)

Hollywood and modern liberalism,have done great harm to the perception of guns in the mind's of Americans,plus far too many parents failed to pass on traditional values to their children-such as common sense when it comes to guns. By the time I was 12,I owned a blt-action 22 and a semi-auto 22 and a 30-30 Winchester 73,got my first buck with the 30-30 at 12..that how things are with us Texan's that come from the country.

Being armed,makes for a very polite society..lol. :thumbsup:

Have a good one ! :jointsmile:

[TallCoolOne]

Hand guns should be illegal everywhere. They were made for one reason: to kill other humans. Don't give me that 2nd Ammendment speech bullshit, because the Bill of Rights says Right to Arms.......does that mean every American is entitled to an H-Bomb?

[Mississippi Steve]

Howdy Gandalf,

I'm with guitar-player on this issue..if I can go into the military at 17 and be trained to carry a weapon,then I think that we should demand that the students be at least mature enough to be responsible with a firearm.

When I went to highschool in the 70's,we were allowed to bring guns to school,we just had to keep em locked up in the trunk,that's how much trust our school officials had in us to be mature and responsible with firearms.

We need to bring back firearms safety and competition courses,and colleges need to stop kicking ROTC off of the campus's.

Have a good one ! :)

You forget that in the military, they have adult supervision

[Torog]

Hand guns should be illegal everywhere. They were made for one reason: to kill other humans. Don't give me that 2nd Ammendment speech bullshit, because the Bill of Rights says Right to Arms.......does that mean every American is entitled to an H-Bomb?

Howdy Tall,

Well daggum,I would'a figured that a feller from Georgia,would have more sense than that-when it comes to handguns..are ya a transplanted yankee city-slicker or something ?

That's one heck of a stretch-from handguns to H-bombs..lmao,thanx for the laugh ! :D

The fact is is,is that Americans should be equivocally armed as the police and military,with the exception of machine guns and Navy and Air Force,and tanks.

Have a good one ...

PS: it'd sure be nice to have one of what this gal in the pic has .. :thumbsup:

[Humboldt215]

Howdy Tall,

Well daggum,I would'a figured that a feller from Georgia,would have more sense than that-when it comes to handguns..are ya a transplanted yankee city-slicker or something ?

That's one heck of a stretch-from handguns to H-bombs..lmao,thanx for the laugh ! :D

The fact is is,is that Americans should be equivocally armed as the police and military,with the exception of machine guns and Navy and Air Force,and tanks.

Have a good one ...

PS: it'd sure be nice to have one of what this gal in the pic has .. :thumbsup:



yup! your 2nd. amendment rights

[Mr. Bubbles]

There are two ways to solve the problem of violence in society. The 'let everyone pack heat' method is the lazy man's method. If someone gets murdered, you just say,
"Well, he had the means to defend himself. Too bad."

Instead of that mindset, we should focus on ridding our society of potentially violent people. Or at the very least, ship them off to the military. :D

[TheDefiler]

Ya chainguns are badass!!!

[MindBlo]

Really good question I think. I attended a school that had a shooting that resulted in a death shortly before I got there. I didn't find out about it until after I was registered and I probably would have made a different choice had I known sooner. There wasn't another incident since, if fact the next incident in the same state was V-Tech.

The question is broad pertaining to students since theoretically, most juniors and seniors can legally carry handguns. Lets face it, all of us here enjoy our right to free speech so I cannot be hypocritical and deny the right of another.

I do however think that private campuses would serve themselves well to ban dangerous weapons on campus but public schools with open campuses will violate the constitutional rights of its students and faculty if they were to institute a ban. However I am all for banning dangerous weapons in buildings on public campuses. Outside of that, a ban will reduce future incidences but at the expense of violating a constitutional right.

[indicagrower]

hey now while were on it...i know for a fact there are highschool's that are more dangerous on a daily basis than a "possible rampage" ...So if the college kids get to carry, then the highschoolers should too right??.....Yes i know the highschooler's packin pistols is kinda rediculous....just as rediculous as college kids packin....

[angry nomad]

I used to be pretty anti Second Amendment... But, I thought about it for a long time. I thought of possible scenarios, and looked at history, and different news stories.


Student Group Wants Campus Gun Ban Lifted
By Christine Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 17, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns.

[ here is the rest of the story: ]

Student Group Wants Campus Gun Ban Lifted -- 09/17/2002 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5 CNAT20020917a.html)

Here is Adolf Hitler's racist gun ban from 1938:
"Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jewâ??s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions...will be punished with imprisonment and a fine."
-- NAZI WEAPONS LAW OF 1938 (Regulations Against Jewsâ?? Possession of Weapons, 11 November 1938, German Minister of the Interior
Frick)
Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938 (http://www.jpfo.org/NaziLawGerman.htm)

The Forum - SpeakOut.com (http://speakout.com/forum_view.asp?Forum=Gun_Control&MID=104325&mMID=104325)

This is a new story of an armed law-abiding woman shooting a rapist:

City Neighborhoods
Arrest in East End sex assaults

Man shot Thursday morning identified by 6 female victims
Arrest in East End sex assaults (http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_city/20021015arrest1015p1.asp)

I am pro Second Amendment, but I also believe we need gun control.

If the populace is not armed, how are we going to defend ourselves against tyranny? History shows that free nations eventually devolve into tyranny. It's happening in the US right now, slowly. We have cops in riot gear and masks marching in phalanxes. These black costumes are created intentionally to intimidate the masses. In Miami, cops shot a protester, a middle aged woman with a rubber bullet for no reason twice, then laughed about it. I mean, they all laughed about it, and congratulated each other.

YouTube - Miami Police Shot Protester, then laugh about it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0)

I am not saying that the woman should've been armed, or shot the cops. What I am saying is that if the government takes all our guns away, they have free reign to do whatever the hell they want to us. And what are we going to do? Say, "Hey, you'll be hearing from my lawyer! I'll sue!"

Also when you take all the guns away from the people, the only people left with guns are criminals, the police, the military, and a few good citizens that would rather break the law and carry a gun to protect themselves. If organized criminals, the police, and the military have guns, and we don't, they have power over us.

Personal protection is a good reason. There is a logical case for the cliche scene: the husband with his arms up in the air saying, "take whatever you want. Just don't hurt my family." I agree with people that you might get shot if you drew a gun on the invader, but what if he was going to tie you up, and then kill you and your wife, but rape her first?

For example:
East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker (http://www.ear-ons.com/investigate5.html)

On TV the nice silly burglars just take the TV, jewelry, and some chocolate cookies.

But, do you really think someone that just broke into your home while you were asleep and is pointing a gun at you is someone you can trust?

I agree that certain people should not be allowed to own guns. People that were convicted of violent crimes, are one. I do believe in waiting periods, and criminal background checks before being allowed to purchase. I do believe in required classes on how to properly store firearms and ammunitions safely, and all laws pertaining to them.

There are stories every year of armed citizens subduing killers, and defending themselves and their families against rapists with guns.

I know there some stories of accidental shootings, but we need to look at the statistics.

This is from the 2000 census of the US.

In 1996:

Accidents caused by:
Firearms, unspecified and other- 947
handguns - 187

Accidental falls- 14,986

Inhalation and ingestion of objects- 3,206

You are more likely to die from accidentally falling or choking than dying in a handgun accident.

Deaths and Death Rates from Accidents, by Type statistics - USA Census numbers (http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/135_deaths_and_death_rates_from_accidents.html)

I have thought about owning a gun for a long time, and I have finally decided to get one. I believe every non-violent law-abiding American of voting age has the right to bear arms.

There is so much information and statistics on both sides of the debate, but it was the what if scenario I thought of...

What if a man or a few men broke into my house and wanted to steal my stuff? Would I rather have a gun or not? Doesn't matter as long as they don't hurt me or my wife.

But, what if the men wanted to rape my wife, and kill us? Would I rather have a gun or not? And how do I know what they want?

EDIT: I edited the news headline for emphasis.

[jessem98]

ill put it this way. IF every college student were to carry a gun, there would be A LOT more shootings just based on the fact that the crazy people without the guns now HAVE guns, haha. plus im sure there would be a ton of shootouts between people in an argument.

NO GUNS, ITS DUMB AS HELL IN MY OPINION.

[guitar_player882006]

Ok, first I wouldn't want every college student to carry a weapon. I would however like students that have received a ccw to be able to carry a weapon. These are people that have been been given permission by the state to carry their weapon. Also TallCoolOne, it's true that handguns were designed to kill. Though they just might kill the would be rapist, or the burglar that's breaking into your home, or the junkie on the street that's robbing you. You can't rely on the police to come to your aid all the time, you have to take your life into your own hands. Who's to say that my constitutional right should stop at my door step. That would be like saying well you have the right to free speech, as long as your inside your home. It's already been statistically proven that cities with looser gun laws have less crime, than cities that have strict gun laws. Just for an example look at England, once they enacted their gun ban violence sky rocketed. All the criminals knew that no one could defend themselves, so there was no risk attacking someone. Where as if you look at places like Kennesaw Georgia, you'll see that once they enacted a law requiring each home to have at least one firearm with ammunition. Their crime rate dropped 89%, and has stayed that low. Just like who in their right mind would consider commiting a crime at gun show, where you are surrounded with people that have guns. Well that's the end of my rant.....for now.

[qdavid]

What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?

Crazy

[sam44]

a well armed populace is the best defense against tyranny

[Psycho4Bud]

Schools should be for scholars, not thugs. Increasing campus security would be a more effective solution then allowing ill trained people to walk around armed. And the liability a college would face should a "miss understanding" happen. Those who do not have police or military training should leave the guns at the door while in school.

A voice of reason! :thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

[MrNiceGuy420]

i believe every us citizen who doesnt have a history of being violent, should be allowed to own, carry, and use a gun, anywhere in the united states where is not prohibited by the owner of that property. I think a school, airline, park, building, monument, etc should be allowed to decide if they want to allow or prohibit guns on thier property, instead of the government telling them "no you cant have a gun on a plane". People could ONLY use thier gun in self defense and hunting non-human animals that are not endangered, pets, etc. If they shoot someone, they will be charged with murder and will never be allowed to own a gun in the united states again. People might say this would increase murders, but say for some horrible reason you wanted to shoot someone, if you knew they were allowed to have a gun on them and use it if they were threatened by a gun they could use it in defense, wouldnt you be a little more hesitant?

[jakez]

No matter what there are always going to be criminals with guns. Why would we WANT a law taking our right to guns away?! There is no logical reason to disarm (or try to) ourselves, only an insane or evil driven person should think that.

Let's see, some people are smart and will arm themselves for safety, while others will be murdered/raped/robbed etc. and then cry that guns should be taken away because they do bad things! As if the person robbing them is going to hand their weapon over once the law is in?! Instead the people that were smart protecting themselves are now helpless... what is wrong with people? :cool:

[Mississippi Steve]

I own many firearms and keep adding to the collection....they are all obtained legaly and are all registered. That being said, Time for the rest of you to do some home work... What countries have bans on personal firearm ownership?? Who in those countries have guns?? How many people (percentages) get killed there by illegal firearms?? Somebody brought up Hitler....heres something else to think about... When Hitler invaded Poland, the first thing he did was to collect all of the registered firearms.

Weapons DO NOT belong on *ANY* campus other than maybe police acadamies and such where they have a reason to carry, and then only when required in the course of training.

Firearms have their place, and its not in acadamia.

[KevinFinnerty]

I posted the following in another thread but I'll post it again in here:

I can't help but shake my head at all these people talking about how everyone should have the right to be armed and gun control is stupid. I mean, if somebody sneaks up behind you, pulls out a gun, and says "give me all your money or I'll kill you," what are you gonna do? Pull out your own gun and shoot him before he can pull the trigger? Or are you going to always have your gun loaded, cocked, and in your hand? (although I can't imagine someone pulling a gun on you if that were the case)

I can understand why it might make someone feel safer to have a gun on them when they feel like they are in a dangerous place, but, if you stop and think about it logically, you'd be a lot safer if the government made a concerted effort to rid the country of as many firearms as possible (maybe they could use the ridiculous amount of funds spent on the war on drugs, as well as the draconian punishments given to users/dealers, to instead prevent the sale of guns). The bottom line is that making it legal to purchase firearms, even if it's only legal for certain qualified individuals, makes it easier for criminals, or potential criminals, to get a hold of them (think about all the money unscrupulous people can make by buying guns legally and selling them on the black market).

I mean, I'm no criminal and I don't know any personally so I can't say for sure, but I would guess that the majority of guns used in violent crimes were either purchased legally, or purchased from someone who purchased it legally, or stolen from someone who purchased it legally, or purchased from someone who purchased it from someone who purchased it from someone legally, etc. If we made it completely illegal for anybody to purchase guns, I don't see how you can argue against the fact that it would definitely make it more difficult for a criminal to procure one.

To put it simply, instead of thinking "I should be allowed to carry a gun just in case some dude on the street pulls one out on me," you should instead think "if I'm allowed to carry a gun, there's a MUCH greater chance of some dude on the street pulling one out on me," and like I said earlier, unless you've got it locked, loaded and in your hand at all times, that gun isn't going to do you much good in such a situation.




That's the end of what I posted in another thread, but I'd like to respond specifically to what a couple of you said. A lot of you are saying that it's a good idea for people to be armed just in case they become the subject of "tyranny" so they can fight back. Well, I'd much rather trust the government officials we elect to not be tyrannical than allow people to take things into their own hands whenever they see fit. I mean, if you allow people to have firearms to fight back against the government when they think they're being mistreated, how could you be upset or surprised if, say, a group of neo-nazis goes and kills a bunch of government officials in a coup d'etat because they perceive the government as being tryannical? After all, you've sent the message that the populace should be armed and ready to fight back against tyranny. It's clearly more sensible to keep guns out of civilians hands and let the government (who represent our collective interests as we vote them in) do its job than to let everyone form their own militias.

Another thing to keep in mind when discussing the issue of gun control is that statistics regarding guns and their effect on society can be used to support either side of the debate depending on how you look at them. Some of you have said statistics prove that looser gun laws equal less crime but, according to statistics, Japan has one of the lowest crime (and murder) rates in the world, and also one of the strictest gun control policies in the world. Canada, a country relatively similar to the U.S. culturally, has a significantly lower amount of violent crime (less than half) than the U.S. which can be attributed to its much stricter gun policies. Another statistical example is Switzerland, which has a significantly higher murder rate than other Central and Western European countries, and is well-known for it liberal gun laws (there's a firearm for about every 3 people). The point is that there are so many other factors affecting crime rates that it's hard to come to a valid conclusion as to what effect gun laws have on them. Throwing around statistics is not necessarily the best way to prove your argument.

I'll end by responding to the argument I hear most from gun rights advocates that just doesn't hold water. Many of those people say that the best way to reduce gun-related crime is by arming as many of the potential victims as possible, so potential criminals would be deterred. Using the logic that the best way to curb gun violence is by having everyone armed, the United States shouldn't stop Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other country from having nuclear weapons because, after all, the best way to avoid a nuclear holocaust is if every country has nuclear weapons. That way, they can all "protect themselves." Somehow I don't think all the gun-toting red-staters that cling so tightly to the 2nd Amendment would be alright with such a policy.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I posted the following in another thread but I'll post it again in here:

I can't help but shake my head at all these people talking about how everyone should have the right to be armed and gun control is stupid. I mean, if somebody sneaks up behind you, pulls out a gun, and says "give me all your money or I'll kill you," what are you gonna do? Pull out your own gun and shoot him before he can pull the trigger? Or are you going to always have your gun loaded, cocked, and in your hand? (although I can't imagine someone pulling a gun on you if that were the case)

But you're only listing one instance where a gun would be useless against another. Not all instances of gun-robbery are somebody sneaking up behind you. I don't think any pro-gunners here have the illusion that having a gun will make you invincible and imperveous to harm, only to give you a fighting chance in most circumstances.


I can understand why it might make someone feel safer to have a gun on them when they feel like they are in a dangerous place, but, if you stop and think about it logically, you'd be a lot safer if the government made a concerted effort to rid the country of as many firearms as possible (maybe they could use the ridiculous amount of funds spent on the war on drugs, as well as the draconian punishments given to users/dealers, to instead prevent the sale of guns). The bottom line is that making it legal to purchase firearms, even if it's only legal for certain qualified individuals, makes it easier for criminals, or potential criminals, to get a hold of them

That's just the thing, many would argue that we're not safer with the government making a concerted effort to rid the nation of guns. Many governments have tried to do this already and all it results in is law-abiding citizens with no access to firearms, while criminals purchase them on the black market anyway. You mention the war on drugs; likewise, consider how the war on drugs has harmed us. By making drugs illegal, banning them outright, they've put all the drugs into the hands of criminals, created a black market resulting the harm of millions, and has utterly failed to control the drug problem. Now you're saying we should take all the money spent on the failed war on drugs and put it into banning guns. Well if the incredible amount of money and effort spent on banning drugs is a blatant failer, what makes you think the "war on guns" is going to be more successful?


(think about all the money unscrupulous people can make by buying guns legally and selling them on the black market).

Why would they when their customers could go to the legal market? Think of the money already being made selling guns on the black market.


I mean, I'm no criminal and I don't know any personally so I can't say for sure, but I would guess that the majority of guns used in violent crimes were either purchased legally, or purchased from someone who purchased it legally, or stolen from someone who purchased it legally, or purchased from someone who purchased it from someone who purchased it from someone legally, etc. If we made it completely illegal for anybody to purchase guns, I don't see how you can argue against the fact that it would definitely make it more difficult for a criminal to procure one.


It probably would make it more difficult. But it would also massively increase the size of the firearms black market, and as I said, result in only criminals being able to get a hold of guns. I'd rather have a few more criminals able to get guns and us able to defend ourselves, than slightly less criminals with acess to guns and we're left helpless.
I'd also like to point out that no, most criminals don't get their guns legally. I've been reading about gangs in the big cities lately, watching a few videos, and they're getting their guns off the streets. I'm sure a lot of those guns are initially procurred legally, but so long as guns are legal anywhere in the world, all illegal firearms will initially be legal and end up illegal.


To put it simply, instead of thinking "I should be allowed to carry a gun just in case some dude on the street pulls one out on me," you should instead think "if I'm allowed to carry a gun, there's a MUCH greater chance of some dude on the street pulling one out on me," and like I said earlier, unless you've got it locked, loaded and in your hand at all times, that gun isn't going to do you much good in such a situation.

Some would argue there's a much lesser chance when these people know that if they pull a gun on a victim, there's a good chance that victim be able to shoot back.
I'm also inclined to mention that I've heard/seen several stories of robbers who tried to rob stores in gun-carrying states, and the several people in the store all whip out their guns on the robber.

I just can't condone creating a nation of victims. I've seen too many examples in law, schools, and society where we try to legislate a violence-free society, and all we do is disempower the honest law-abiders while leaving the victimizers unapposed.





That's the end of what I posted in another thread, but I'd like to respond specifically to what a couple of you said. A lot of you are saying that it's a good idea for people to be armed just in case they become the subject of "tyranny" so they can fight back. Well, I'd much rather trust the government officials we elect to not be tyrannical than allow people to take things into their own hands whenever they see fit. I mean, if you allow people to have firearms to fight back against the government when they think they're being mistreated, how could you be upset or surprised if, say, a group of neo-nazis goes and kills a bunch of government officials in a coup d'etat because they perceive the government as being tryannical?


In a nation that already allows vast gun ownership, how many times has this actually happened? The government isn't helpless either, that's why they have militaries and police. You're making it like any nutjob group with some guns with easily throw over the poor helpless government, and this of course isn't the case.


After all, you've sent the message that the populace should be armed and ready to fight back against tyranny.

As they should. This ideology was put in place because of tyranical governments that did horrible things to their people.



It's clearly more sensible to keep guns out of civilians hands and let the government (who represent our collective interests as we vote them in) do its job than to let everyone form their own militias.

Giving the populace the ability to oppose tyrany was based on an oppressive government stamping all over the rights of the individual. With your current administration, and bills like the patriot act, do you really feel so confident that your government is going to stay your buddy?

Hitler's government was elected in democratically by the people, and through fear mongering similar to what we see today, he established a dictatorship the people have regretted to this day.

Simply put, if government does stamp all over our rights, how are we to fight back when the time comes? I guarantee you it won't be sudden and obvious, it'll be a gradual diminishment of individual rights justified in the name of protecting us.


Another thing to keep in mind when discussing the issue of gun control is that statistics regarding guns and their effect on society can be used to support either side of the debate depending on how you look at them. Some of you have said statistics prove that looser gun laws equal less crime but, according to statistics, Japan has one of the lowest crime (and murder) rates in the world, and also one of the strictest gun control policies in the world.

A valid point. I'm actually all for gun control, to a resonable degree, just not gun prohibition.


Canada, a country relatively similar to the U.S. culturally, has a significantly lower amount of violent crime (less than half) than the U.S. which can be attributed to its much stricter gun policies.


And you know this can be attributed to our gun policies? Not the fact that we don't have nearly as crazy a war on drugs, not nearly the degree of racial tension, and a more balanced standard of living? There's an absolutely huge number of administrative and cultural factors that come in to play when considering crime rates.
It should be noted as well that our handgun death rates are equal per-capita to that of the united states. Surry, a city in lower-mainland BC, is the car-theft capital of North America.


Another statistical example is Switzerland, which has a significantly higher murder rate than other Central and Western European countries, and is well-known for it liberal gun laws (there's a firearm for about every 3 people). The point is that there are so many other factors affecting crime rates that it's hard to come to a valid conclusion as to what effect gun laws have on them. Throwing around statistics is not necessarily the best way to prove your argument.

Statistics and theoretical logic are both necessary of course.


I'll end by responding to the argument I hear most from gun rights advocates that just doesn't hold water. Many of those people say that the best way to reduce gun-related crime is by arming as many of the potential victims as possible, so potential criminals would be deterred. Using the logic that the best way to curb gun violence is by having everyone armed, the United States shouldn't stop Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other country from having nuclear weapons because, after all, the best way to avoid a nuclear holocaust is if every country has nuclear weapons. That way, they can all "protect themselves." Somehow I don't think all the gun-toting red-staters that cling so tightly to the 2nd Amendment would be alright with such a policy.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran have already been shown to be sponsoring terrorism. Your comparison is equivilant to saying we should equally arm those we know to be criminals and those who aren't. I think most reasonable people, pro or anti gun, would agree that somebody already known to have comitted a crime shouldn't be given a gun.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Weapons DO NOT belong on *ANY* campus other than maybe police acadamies and such where they have a reason to carry, and then only when required in the course of training.



I actually agree with this. While I'm an advocate of personal gun ownership, I'm not crazy about the idea of bringing guns to school. Hence, I think only armed security guards should be allowed to carry them.

[guitar_player882006]

I would love it if the only people that had weapons on a campus were security guards, and ROTC. Though we have seen MANY times before that the little signs on the front door of schools that say "NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND", just don't stop a shooter from entering. Also thanks Gandolf for writing down my thoughts in your previous post.