What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?
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.
What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?
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.
What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
(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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve
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.
What do you think about allowing college students to carry guns?
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.
