|
Quote:
It isn't an insult, but I won't simply say I don't agree. If you're knowledgeable about something, and clearly I'm not, for the benefit of others monitoring the discussion I would fully expect you to point out that disparity. I don't think there is anything abnormal about this. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say so and explain why you feel that way, if you so choose. A lot of people are out there spreading lies/misrepresentations/misunderstandings about firearms. Thus, if I think I spot some, I'm more than willing to point them out. |
Quote:
I do think it will be interesting for those states who decide to grant that ability. Who should make that decision? State legislators elected by citizens, or the university administrators, who may harbor anti-gun agendas not shared by the citizenry? |
Also, to toss one more pebble into the ripple, the idea that concealed campus carry might "scare" a would-be assailant from carrying out his craziness may be naive. Those types seem to like going out in a "blaze of glory" and often just turn the gun on themselves, anyway, so why would they care if the final bullet came from another gun? They'll still have had their rampage, will get their "fame" and won't have to face the consequences legally. So sure, they may get mowed down a little quicker if a couple of quick-draws in the 3rd row stand up and catch him in the chest, but that doesn't mean he won't still kick those doors in, fully armed and guns blazing randomly and try to do as much damage as he can before the gunfire he might now anticipate starts.
|
Quote:
Like everything else in this discussion, the result isn't certain. My mindset has nothing to do with whether this would be enough to dissuade potential assailants or whether it would prevent mass murder. Rather, I think that those responsible enough to carry in malls, restaurants, banks, etc...shouldn't have to abandon that ability to attend school. |
Quote:
Quote:
I simply disagree with guns where the law currently forbids them. I said that in certain contexts (i.e. home, school, work) guns can increase the violence potential because everyone wants to protect "what's theirs" and it decreases the ability for altercations to end without gunfire. Therefore, the law forbids them in certain places for a reason. Among those reasons: 1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools. 2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it. 3. Everything else I said in my previous posts. This is a circular discussion because my point of reference will always be different than yours. That's fine. |
Quote:
Exactly. Students are expected to have one hand on their pen and the other on their gun at all times. These would-be assailants should be very afraid. Not. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I simply disagree with guns where the law currently forbids them. I said that in certain contexts (i.e. home, school, work) guns increase the violence potential because everyone wants to protect "what's theirs" and it decreases the ability for altercations to end without gunfire. Therefore, the law forbids them in certain places for a reason. Among those reasons: 1. People who own guns do not shoot up random restaurants if the server pisses them off. However, the likelihood of gun violence increases with the frequency in which gun access converges with people's daily interactions with others. That's based on years of qualitative and quantitate research on gun violence in neighborhoods, homes, and schools. 2. The above includes already motivated offenders (who weren't found in background checks--no surprise) who now have a legal reason to have their gun at school--spend less time hiding their gun and more time focusing on what they plan on doing with it. 2. Everything else I said in my previous posts. This is a circular discussion because my point of reference will always be different than yours. That's fine.[/QUOTE] 1. I'd like to see any particular research you're referring to. I suspect you may be speaking in generalities, but if there is a specific study you took note of I'd like to know about it. There is also research showing that violence has decreased in areas where gun ownership for purposes of self defense is encouraged. I also highly suspect that there are also other variables in many of these studies which may disqualify them from usefulness in this discussion. 2. I've seen no support for such an argument. If you argue that potential killers may use concealed carry on campus rights, I'd agree with you. My point is that the prohibition of concealed carry on campus won't prevent such people from going forward with their plans. All it does is prevent those who respect the law from protecting themselves. You're right that this is a circular discussion. I'm not writing because I want to win this argument, I'm responding because I don't want your assertions to go uncontested, considering this is a very popular topic with a lot of people having unformed opinions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The average private school will certainly not allow students to carry guns on campus. State schools will probably be subject to state laws. However, state legislators know that some of their funding goes down the drain if they lose students, faculty, and staff who do not want a campus filled with gun toting randoms. Cost and benefit analysis says that the average state school will not allow gun toting and those who do allow it will have to make a lot of adjustments to ensure it doesn't fail. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Decreases in violence are a combination of factors just as increases are. Refer back to what I said in my other post about gun violence in the 1990's. where my point is that gun access did not reduce violence the way people assumed that it would. Gun violence increased for reasons including but not limited to gun access, however new people became involved because they now had guns that they attempted to use or had guns taken from them (which put more guns on the streets). Law abiding citizens were not going to let people take over their communities and they wanted to both protect themselves and fight back. Well, that made the would-be assailants think of better ways to be better assailants and prepare for wannabe Rambos with guns. Other variables do not dismiss a studies usefulness. :confused: Other variables with effects that are not controlled for provide limitations that reduce the strength of the findings. Quote:
It isn't about winning or losing because this isn't a formal debate. :) But I don't consider anything you typed to be a challenge to any of my assertions. And the fact still remains that guns will never be allowed on the average campus. :) |
Quote:
:( Gun access without changed expectations. Yeah, this is definitely a theoretical discussion. :) Your gun by your bed doesn't deter individual criminals unless you put "I have a gun by my bed" on every window and door. But you are expected to always be aware of where your gun is, know what to do with it, and be prepared to do something with it if need be. Right? :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It isn't about winning or losing, you're right. I said that because I didn't want you to interpret my continual responses as beating a dead horse, considering the circular nature of the argument. I just didn't want your assertions to go un-responded to. |
It will be fascinating to see which happens first: a gun-carrying student shoots a gunman mid-assault and saves lives, or the gun-carrying student fails to stop an assailant/makes a "friendly fire"-type mistake/exacerbates a domestic situation or whatever.
So much of this type of 'debate' is fueled by perception issues and personal beliefs on the utility of firearms. I don't really think allowing students to have "conceal and carry" permits on campuses will have much of an effect at all on the whole (in either direction), but there will certainly be an outcry and explosion of media attention on that very first situation. If you support weapons on campuses, you'd better damn well hope someone successfully plays hero before someone else screws up in a fatal way - which is kind of a microcosm for why I think this entire conversation is low-yield and kind of silly: I don't have any information that I find credible either way, and hate being in the prognostication business without any background or foundation. I also hate that this is such a media-fueled mess, and that we fail to even investigate some of the core issues of why that's bad. |
I personally wouldn't like to attend a school where concealed weapons are allowed. I just graduated and while the atmosphere at my particular school isn't violent, we already have enough crazy people and/or behavior without guns being allowed on campus. I would honestly take the odds of a random crazy with a gun busting into glass than know that any random person could break out into gunfire at any moment. I guarantee option one will happen a million times less than option two. At least at my particular school. If we allowed guns at school I know people would go bezerk on any given day and have the gun ready to do the deed. I'll take my chances against the one shooter than the thousands that would be packing if allowed.
My heart goes out to the families, no one expects this to happen and those people obviously were not involved in his personal problems. He had no right to ruin so many lives in this way. |
All the attention given to these horrific mass shootings in a way are advertising to the sick and twisted minds out there that the easiest way to make a name for yourself is to select a gun free zone (like a university, K-12 school, public mall, etc.) and it’s open season. Victims are plenty, and are easy prey as they are already disarmed. A murderer can take as much time as they need since they already know they will not initially be faced with any armed resistance what so ever. They also know that while the police may arrive quickly, the police are still going to have to take some time to organize and figure out how and where to respond with force. While it took only two minutes (30 seconds in one report) for the police to respond and be on scene, the rampage was already over in this case. It was said the quicker response was due to lessons learned from VT.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Had the school allowed the faculty, or the students to carry concealed weapons on campus, the numbers could be lower. Notice I didn't say the numbers would be eliminated. A crazed gunperson is probably always going to claim a few vicitms, that cannot be ignored. What I'm talking about is reducing the casualties and deaths by allowing students and faculty the option to carry. This cannot be ignored as was proven in Colorado Springs recently; armed citizens are deterrents and can put an end to a murder spree quickly. The school has a duty to provide security, actual security for the students, not measures to make students “feel” safe. I imagine that’s part of the tuition cost, and if I was a student attending there today I’d feel ripped off. If the administrators cannot guarantee a safe environment for learning then they should allow responsible adults – which last time I checked is the term used for people of age 18 and older in this country, to be armed on campus and off as local/state laws allow. Otherwise the school administration should look no further than them for allowing this to happen. They make the policy, they enforce the policy. People say guns on campus are a bad idea. Look at the lack of gun play at the Univeristy of Utah, where responsible students are allowed to carry. No mass shootings there. People say allowing students to be armed is a bad idea; they can’t control themselves, and are irresponsible. These statements are unfounded (see U of Utah), and stereotype adults of a wide age range and maturity levels. It’s a form of discrimination. As a responsible gun owner I can meet with my state representatives in Virginia, in the General Assembly building in Richmond, while ARMED, but if I were to enroll at a local university I cannot attend classes armed for my own protection? Tell me that is not discrimination, against my constitutional rights. While a university or college may be private property, and private property owners can request you disarm, they then should be liable for any and all lawsuits that are the result of any damage that happens upon you for not creating a safe environment. How many more of these mass slayings will we have to endure before people wake up and realize that the current policy of disarming students is not working? Perhaps the answer is to take on-line classes. At least that way in my home, I can be armed, attend class, and know for certain that I am “safe”. I don't go around armed because I am "afraid" or so I can save the world. I am interested in saving my family and myself and having that option wherever I go. Another way to look at this, is for all the boys and girls out there. How many of you have taken any kind of self defense classes or were taught how to "fight" or defend yourself? Why did you feel the need to do so? These things taught by those instructors are tools for you to use. No different than a gun, it's just a different type of tool. If someone tried to punch you in the face would you try to block it? Why would you not want to be able to try and shoot someone that was purposely shooting at you? |
Quote:
The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything. And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target. This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy. It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible. Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon. As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person. |
Quote:
Other variables do not remove the usefulness of the study. Demographics are always controlled for. Gun training isn't controlled for because that data is not available. There is no central agency that monitors that and reports the data. That data also won't be available if students get guns on campuses, just like it isn't available now with the concealed weapons permits. :) Quote:
|
Quote:
Another worrisome thing to me was brought up by KSIG RC earlier: "It will be fascinating to see which happens first: a gun-carrying student shoots a gunman mid-assault and saves lives, or the gun-carrying student fails to stop an assailant/makes a "friendly fire"-type mistake/exacerbates a domestic situation or whatever." Even professional law enforcement officers and military personnel who receive ongoing weapons training sometimes end up killing or wounding the wrong person. Having taken a firearms safety class -- or several of them -- does not prepare one for combat. |
Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.
Not going to respond to the whole thing as a) it's tl;dr, b) you're a one-poster and c) I have better things to do this morning. But, in response to the bolded: Gee, thanks for the warm greeting. The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything. Actually, no it wasn't her JOB. She's a volunteer. "The Rev. Boyd, who introduced Assam, stressed that all church guards were volunteers who worshiped at the church and were legally allowed to carry guns." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center And secondly: Because returning fire means I make a better target. Actually, not quite. You don't make a "better target", your already a target in this case. Your chances of being more visible increase depending on when you shoot and if you miss. Then you might be a more visible target. Though if I were a crazed gun man and I met someone that was armed and shooting back at me I would think that is a more risky target to me. The easy ones are already in front of me running for their lives or cowering in fear. This isn't the movies and it isn't my job to kill the bad guy. I agree, it's not my job either, nor is it my job to protect you or anyone else in the crowd and I'm not advocating that. I'm advocating the ability to chose to shoot at someone in the event they decide to open up on a crowd like this and I feel like I might be next - in this environment that chance is extremely high wouldn't you say? If having a weapon in class increases my likelihood of survival by even 5%, that's 5% I'd take. It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible. How exactly does one do that? Jump up and down and attract attention to yourself, essentially making yourself a martyr? Signaling to students around you the way to the door? Shouting something? All these things would bring more focus on you in this situation. Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon. Ok, so even if you had the ability and skill to shoot back, you still would not approve others around you having the same ability, because you don't like your fellow citizens to be armed. That's what your saying right? As it is, college students have less than fully developed decision making areas of their brains. I do not trust a large percentage of the population with a firearm carried on their person. Wow. That's pretty disrespectful to stereotype people like that. Considering that not all college students are under the age of 21. A good deal of students these days are over 21 and have taken classes and shoot regularily. Not to mention a good deal of students are also former members of the military who have had additional firearms training. I on the other hand trust a small percentage of the population with firearms, and surprisingly Police Officers fall into this category. You see the Police only have a limited amount of tax payers funds, and a very small portion of that actually goes to firearms training/qualification. The ammo that is paid for is to perform basic weapons qualification certifications and for advanced tactics - which involves a very small number of people. Most Police Officers don't goto the range on their own time and pay for their own ammo. Why do you think there are so many reports of Police involved in multiple shot incidents where they fire a high number of rounds that don't hit their actual target? Many if not all of your comments are unfair and unfounded. |
Quote:
In a high stress situation an armed person may be as likely to shoot an innocent bystander, him/herself or nobody at all as they are to hit an intruder. It just seems to me that in the middle of chaos, a lot of people with guns are going to cause more problems than solutions. |
[QUOTE=bohdi;1602976]Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.
Quote:
The gunman in Colorado springs was shot by a security guard. Yes it was her personal weapon, but it was also her JOB. Despite the fact that conceal-carry appears to be legal there, there's no evidence that arming your average citizen deterred anything. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's my job to stay alive and to help others stay alive if possible. Quote:
Also, even if I were 100% skilled enough to do so, I do NOT believe that this random chance outweighs the dislike I have for everyone else around me to be carrying a weapon. Quote:
Quote:
The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon. Quote:
|
Drolfille, my apologies for not engaging in the predetermined protocols to introduce myself to the forum. I'll have to go back and rectify that, but you missed the point. I get yours. Your not comfortable with people being armed around you period.
The quote button was not my friend 100% of the time, which is why I posted the way I did in this case. Besides, that makes reading a bit more tedious for others. "Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility." Eh, you make it sound like she got her experience/responsibility because she volunteered. I'm not silly enough to think (nor did I state or imply) that if I stood to shoot at an armed gunperson (especially if they were still in FRONT of me) they wouldn't look at me and not try and take me out. They have already determined that I am among their group of victims - If I am faced with the choice of A) getting shot at while trying to run away (50% chance) or B) getting shot at while shooting at the gunman (50%), I'll take B. Regardless you do not have to stand to take a shot at someone. That's why people are taught to shoot prone (on their bellies) and in a kneeling position. If one were to crouch and lower their profile - which many did in this case, that affords you *some* albiet not great cover to conceal your intent. Be it running or pulling a weapon. I disagree with your position. I'd say the chance of someone bursting into a classroom and firing on students is increasing by the day. Criminals and whackos are oppourtunists, they take the path of least resistence. Why do you think you don't hear about many places people are actually armed are attacked outside of war zones? This knucklehead still carried out his attack because he knew the police weren't actually sitting in the class room. He knew the odds were in his favor, being a prior student. He knew all the students were unarmed and he'd meet no resistence. Why do you think people attack malls? Same reasons. Why do you think people attack churches? Same reasons. I don't know about 1 in a million, but with those odds you better start playing the lottery. "Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover." - That didn't help everyone. The only thing that made this less worse is the gunman taking himself out early because he didn't want to face the consequences. "No. I wouldn't be armed either. The random chance that I would be in a classroom on a campus with a shooter, or any other similar situation (suicide by homicide essentially) is not high enough that I would carry, even if I were the best most controlled handler of a weapon in the country. I do believe this applies to everyone else around me as well, especially since none of them are the best, most controlled firearms experts either." So by your thinking if I tried to punch you in the face, you'd let me. That's basically what your saying here, it's the same thing. If it is that's fine, I just want to clarify. "The vast majority of college students on campus are 18-22. Special cases do not make the rule. This is not a stereotype, it is a fact. Same with the brain development. It's a fact. So yes, a minority of college students are "non-traditional" and a minority of those are ex-military and have specific firearms experience. This is rather irrellevant to the fact that I do not want the average college student carrying a weapon." Glad to see your willing to allow the non-traditional and minority students to carry, a compromise then :D We agree. I didn't mean to say I trusted the Police, lol. Nice catch, but if you read the rest of what I wrote, I clearly don't hold the position that Police are very accurate, any more so than an every day citizen with a permit and weapon would be. What I said is that they missed quite a bit and that's been documented. If the Police stand as good of a chance missing a shooter as well as a regular citizen who practices and carries, I'd still rather have a citizen being in that room trying to shoot back and potentially missing. That risk exists either way and is not exclusive to private citizens carrying weapons. |
Quote:
I meant unchallenged, I just have an annoying habit of not being able to use the same term repeatedly in an ongoing conversation. I want to get back into this discussion, but other dueling posters have taken over after your post. Damn, these are long posts, too. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, anyone who shoots a gun is, on average, highly inaccurate. The police, trained in how to enter and handle a situation where a gunman is in a building with civilians, can control their numbers and their method. The average armed civilian has no training nor control over the police or other civilians. If they're all highly inaccurate, I'd rather have the police handle it thank you. Why add another gun firing into the mix? Or two guns? Or a 300 person lecture hall full of them? Maybe it's just that I don't live in fear of people walking into my classroom and shooting me. I don't feel a need to carry a weapon around wherever I go. And sorry shinerbock, too much practice on line by line quoting on my part. |
Quote:
I'm not sure it was your intent, but a lot of people attempt to disparage gun owners or those who wish to extend their right to carry by labeling them as paranoid. If it is to be categorized as "fear," I don't think carrying a weapon is in any way irrational. Some people carry pepper spray or take self-defense classes. Others carry firearms and get training to accompany that. Seems reasonable to me. |
Quote:
That said, a weapon is an offensive solution, not a defensive one. It is active, not passive since no one's going to be wearing hip holsters and making everyone aware of how armed they are. Seat-belts are defensive, weapons are offensive. And guns are lethal ones on top of that. Not really suggesting this as a solution, but tossing it out there: what about bean-bag guns. How would Joe Firearm feel about "non-lethal" alternatives? (I acknowledge that such things can in certain circumstances kill but are generally non-lethal) |
From Theta Mu Chapter ur in our thoughts and prayers? Does anyone know the status of the others who got wounded?!?!
S.K.L.A.M Sigma Kappa- Theta Mu Chapter at UNCC Audra Hathaway Historian Chair |
Quote:
I certainly don't think either side is above using the fear factor. I think my side (for concealed campus in most places) can make legitimate points without playing on people's fears. On the other side, I think the anti-gun crowd bases much of their platform on scaring citizens. Painting the average carrier of a concealed weapon as a wildly shooting maverick is the same thing. These generally aren't people who go purchase a weapon and simply start carrying it around. Many are very capable of operating their weapon in all situations, and just about every time I go to the range I see civilian shooters putting together groups that would make seasoned cops envious. Now, this is simply anecdotal, but I'm explaining where my position grows from. I think the idea that more people would die as a result of concealed carry on campus ignores the abilities of those who carry, in addition to the more important skill many of them possess: years of training/contemplation/experience resulting in the good judgment to know when to risk shooting and when to stay concealed. Weapons are both offensive and defensive solutions. This depends on definition of course, but the use of the weapon in a VT scenario would be in the defense of others and self. Perhaps this is a good spot for a trite statement like "the best defense is a good offense." Besides lethality, how are mace type solutions or certain "self-defense" maneuvers any less offensive? Non lethal solutions are fine. I think they're great tools. However, when someone is threatening me or my family (or friends or classmates) with deadly force, and especially when they've shown they're willing to act with the intent to kill, I don't want to mess around with less-effective forms of defense. You'll never see police use a tazer against someone shooting at them. The point is to stop the threat ASAP, and a gun is the most effective method of doing that. Maybe that seems cold, but my respect for an individual's right to keep living ceases when that person attempts to take the lives of innocent people. |
Shiner,
First, let me say that I'm pleased and impressed with the tone of your argument and thank you for that. For the most part, that goes for the rest of the posters as well. Second, unfortunately, I don't share any confidence that the average gun owner has the training and mental capacity to react cooly and rationally to this kind of situation. Third, given a situation like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois or the others, a lot of guns and no formal tactics among the owners would lead to dangerous crossfire situations with the potential for a lot of innocent casualities. Not meant to be humerous, but the last thing needed is to form a "circular firing squad." Finally, as a small hijack, this discussion has led me to Google a lot of information on Columbine which I hadn't before. My interest in this particular case is because the school is about ten miles from my home, and the facility in which I worked then, and now work again, is four or five miles away and became the headquarters for ABC News, as well as feeds for CNN and other news agencies. When the shooting happened, I was called back from the National Association of Broadcasters conference overnight to help coordinate. The stuff I "Googled" is pretty dry prose, but fascinating. And scary. |
Quote:
1) Depending on the state, anyone can purchase a weapon with relative ease (unless you live in a state that people jokingly refer to as the "People's Republic of _________."). Carrying is an entirely different ballgame. 2 and 3) Even if I were to give you that the average gunowner is irresponsible, I'd strongly argue that the average person who carries concealed is not (this isn't the case, I think the average gun owner is at least as responsible as the average person driving a car). Many states require training. Almost all require heightened background checks, fees, and often extended waiting periods. I strongly suggest from my experience and from reading extensively on the subject that those who will go through the hassles of legal concealed carry take their role very seriously. Many, many such people take firearm training above that which is required. Every person I've ever met (seriously) who legally conceals a weapon practices regularly, and that practice isn't inexpensive. Internet searches will yield thousands of threads about when to act and when to refrain to doing so, and I've found that this is absolutely one of the most intense communities when it comes to disciplining and shaming their own. These people live and die by the four rules of gun handling, and I think it shows. You simply do not hear about a person carrying concealed hurting innocent people very often. It is quite simply, extremely rare. Further, I gave you information about the hassles and cost of carrying concealed to further the idea that not everyone is going to run out and do this. In fact, I suspect relatively few will. Not only is it expensive and time consuming, it simply isn't overly comfortable to do. As a recent college student, I imagine the idea of going to your local probate court during business hours is enough to dissuade all but the truly dedicated. Finally, I simply don't buy into the logic of the collateral damage argument. Because some people could get hurt in a "crossfire", we're not going to allow anyone a means to defend themselves? Is there really any merit to keeping all the rounds going in one direction when that direction is the rest of the class? There are always risks. But if I'm sitting in a classroom with a gunman spraying fire, I'm praying someone has something that can stop him. If its my family or friends in there, I'd much rather risk the chance of them being injured by a gun-owner trying to do the right thing. To me that is a much better gamble than having them defenseless against someone who is intent on taking as many lives as possible. I know I can't give everyone confidence that this is the best solution. It isn't even really a solution, to me it is simply a common sense extension of rights granted everywhere besides on a college campus. However, for those not familiar with guns or gun safety, I encourage you to have a look around the internet and do a bit of research. Head out to the range with a friend who knows what they're doing. I think you'll find that the "gun-culture" in America is a culture that places an extremely high emphasis on personal responsibility and safety. |
Quote:
Now, I point you to Professor Livriu Lebretscu - the concentration camp survivor who taught at Virginia Tech - who shielded his students with his body. Had that man CHOSEN (again, I'm speaking only of those who CHOOSE to be armed) to be armed, would there have been 32 dead? I doubt it. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
My response in parenthesis
Quote:
|
Quote:
While the NRA does a slightly better job of backing up its opinions with data, neither is a credible source. I challenge you to find credible research supporting your point. |
Quote:
Which gets to another issue regarding whose gun access is okay and whose gun access will scare the sweetbejeebus out of people: Are people advocating legalizing guns on college campuses but only for certain types of people from certain socioeconomic backgrounds on certain types of campuses? Background checks are meant to look for background checks, mental health profiles (maybe), and so forth. Sure, background checks are a type of profiling but it isn't profiling based on factors like race and socioeconomic status. Right? It depends on who you ask. Quote:
For the purpose of this discussion, please refer to my previous response. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.