2nd Amendement Rights

[DeltAlum]

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Thank you for the link


Leslie Anne- OMG I did not hear about that (the boy shooting his sister)

nittanyalum- definately agree

[texas*princess]

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=58451

one of many links you can find via google. the boy was only 10... his sister was 9 at the time of the shooting

[VandalSquirrel]

This was recently brought to the Idaho Legislature http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1381.html

I am not a fan for a lot of reasons, particularly how it contradicts or causes problems in other areas of the Idaho Code.

[UGAalum94]

Not to go all bumper sticker slogan on you all*, but I think that when we worry a lot about more restrictions, we limit our analysis to cases, like the recent college shootings, where we have a shooter who acquired the gun through legitimate means and we think to ourselves, no one should have ever sold that guy a gun.

But we kind of ignore all the instances where people have acquired their guns illegally and use them to victimize others. More restrictions on the the law abiding probably won't really appreciably reduce the amount of gun violence; they just make the rest of us easier to victimize.

I'd be all about more gun safety classes, but even more about good parenting and supervision of children generally. A well-supervised child in a "child-proofed" house doesn't shoot anyone, you know? Good parents generally don't don't shoot their kids or associate with people who are likely to shoot their kids or allow them to shoot themselves. (We had a situation in Georgia recently in which a two year old shot himself with his babysitter's gun which was left where he could reach it while his babysitter napped. Sure without the gun, it couldn't have happened; but there are several other factors that could have been altered in the situation to get the same result without restricting guns.)

I'm not sure that it's the guns that are the main issue in most of these family-based tragedies although they sure aren't helping any.

As far as whether we'd be better or worse off in general if more people could carry guns legally wherever they wanted to, I have no idea, but I think we can be confident there would have been fewer college students dead as part of the most recent campus shootings had other students been well trained in the use of handguns and armed. The shooter would have been taken out quicker.

ETA: I just want to make clear that I'm obviously not in favor of arming the mentally ill in case anyone was tempted to spin my post that way. I do think that it's going to be problematic to figure out exactly how the restrictions will work. Is it a lifelong ban if you've ever sought mental health treatment? ( which is only a problem for me because it might make people less likely to seek treatment rather than just preventing them from buying guns) And with the Va.Tech guy, it seems to me that what needed to happen in that case goes so far beyond just not letting him acquire weapons or ammo. He needed to be institutionalized and seems like it was clear long before the crime.

ETA* It occurs to me that bumper stickers reading "If we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns" bummer stickers may not be as common as they used to me, so that's what I'm referring to. The slogan reflects all the usual problems with bumper sticker thinking, I know.

[VandalSquirrel]

I wish someone would do a statistical analysis of the amount of colleges (two and four year, public and private) by state, and then compare it with the amount of shootings that have happened (I am guesstimating maybe 10 total). I'm thinking the amount is very low, and that a lot of the concealed carry is a visceral reaction to what is very low probability wise.

[shinerbock]

I imagine shootings on college campuses are low, "percentage-wise," too.

However, shootings everywhere are relatively low, percentage-wise. Why do people who can legally carry almost everywhere else have to abandon that protection to pursue higher education? I have no doubt that the recent tragedies have energized the movement, but I don't think concealed carry on campus should be allowed BECAUSE of the recent shootings. Rather, I think that people who are responsible enough to carry legally in other places should be able to protect themselves and others on a college campus. The status quo simply allows resistance-free targeting.

I fully support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and those prone to criminal activity. However, most states have laws on the books which do this (though I think we obviously need to try and bring in more of the mental stability aspect--not sure how this would occur), and it is simply a matter of enforcing the laws. Other than bettering the efficiency and breadth of background searches, I don't see what further regulation would do. Rather, I think we should continue to make it relatively simple for responsible people to purchase firearms, keep those regulations that are practical and simple (Some states I think should have less), and strongly punish those who violate these laws.

Here is a recent Newsweek article about carry on college campuses. I was incredibly surprised to find that it was pretty balanced, as the traditional slant of Newsweek is no secret. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I imagine shootings on college campuses are low, "percentage-wise," too.

However, shootings everywhere are relatively low, percentage-wise. Why do people who can legally carry almost everywhere else have to abandon that protection to pursue higher education? I have no doubt that the recent tragedies have energized the movement, but I don't think concealed carry on campus should be allowed BECAUSE of the recent shootings. Rather, I think that people who are responsible enough to carry legally in other places should be able to protect themselves and others on a college campus. The status quo simply allows resistance-free targeting.

I fully support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and those prone to criminal activity. However, most states have laws on the books which do this (though I think we obviously need to try and bring in more of the mental stability aspect--not sure how this would occur), and it is simply a matter of enforcing the laws. Other than bettering the efficiency and breadth of background searches, I don't see what further regulation would do. Rather, I think we should continue to make it relatively simple for responsible people to purchase firearms, keep those regulations that are practical and simple (Some states I think should have less), and strongly punish those who violate these laws.

Here is a recent Newsweek article about carry on college campuses. I was incredibly surprised to find that it was pretty balanced, as the traditional slant of Newsweek is no secret. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174

Sounds good to me.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I wish someone would do a statistical analysis of the amount of colleges (two and four year, public and private) by state, and then compare it with the amount of shootings that have happened (I am guesstimating maybe 10 total). I'm thinking the amount is very low, and that a lot of the concealed carry is a visceral reaction to what is very low probability wise.

Here are the reports for past 3 years on NUI
http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/InstI...asp?CRITERIA=R
For rest of colleges,start here:
http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/search.asp
Main site is this:
http://www.securityoncampus.org/crimestats/index.html

[jon1856]

I first wish to complement everyone on this very interesting exchange of POV's and general thoughts and beliefs.

We could start another thread in R/M on having weapons in a chapter house.

For this thread, I too have some surprising mixed thoughts.

I was a member of the NRA. I was taught gun safety by a retired, U.S. Army Colonel (W.W. II combat veteran). I qualified, long rifle, as a sharpshoot-bar one.
From what I can recall, this is what he told us: "This is NOT a toy. It is a weapon. It can and will kill. Even on a range (which did happen on another range near by-bullets went though a defective back stop and over a mile of trees and hit cars on The Northway.) You have to treat her that way.
At ALL times think safety first.
If you choose to carry a weapon off a range, remember that it will kill. If you use it, be ready to shot to kill. However remember that you too can be killed by her."
Now that stuck in my head. When I had long guns, I kept the bolts far away from the gun.
I sheet shoot sometimes now and if I have ammo around, it too is locked up and far away.

I have never given it a thought that I should keep a weapon near by for "self-defense". While I know how to use them, I never had for lack of a better term combat training. I do know know if I could shoot some one while under pressure. And I do not know if could or would hit them or someone else. And to me, the very thought of hitting the wrong person scares me.

As some, IIRC, have pointed out, things today are very different that the 17 and 1800's. I think we have become perhaps too desensitized on violent acts.
Kids play video games that all one has to do is press reset and a dead person lives.
We have drive bys and road rage.
Some of us have been "raised" on war videos.

On the other hand, there are people, good honest people.
That have good, level headed thinking and thoughts at all times.
Who can control their emotions and understand training and situations.

But just how many are there on school campuses?

One can be well trained on a range and shoot targets real well.
But there is a large leap when the target is shooting at you and many others are around.

As I indicated when I started, I may start re-thinking some positions of mine. Time will will tell.