Shooting at Northern Illinois University

[Drolefille]

[QUOTE=bohdi;1602976]Drolfille - My response to yours in bold.

Gee, thanks for the warm greeting.

You're welcome. People who jump in with one posts on touchy issues are generally sock puppets. Also, quote button is your friend.
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

Her volunteer JOB. She was hired, in part, because she was legally allowed to carry a weapon. Being a person holding a gun was her responsibility.

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.

Right, the gunman won't return fire on someone who might stop him. "Better target" means standing, aiming and firing from a controlled and sadly, visible, position. It means drawing attention to yourself with loud noises and makes you a necessary obstacle for said gunman to overcome for him to continue.

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.

Even if your 5% wasn't pulled from no where, you're talking about 5% out of exactly what chance that someone will bust into your classroom shooting? 1 in a million? And that's why we should all either carry guns or sit next to people who carry guns?

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.

No, that would be stupid. Staying alive is running, hiding, finding cover. Helping others is barricading a door, breaking a window open in another room, helping an injured person flee. Unless you are trained in dealing with high-adrenaline, life-threatening situations, the most the average person can do is breathe and run.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I trust a very small population as well. And, oh my goodness but police officers are in that category as well! Glad we finally agree. None of this addresses the fact that college students are NOT police officers. Nor does it encourage me that said college students if armed would not miss a gunman and hit another student, particularly in a crowded chaotic classroom.