2nd Amendement Rights

[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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sounds good to me.

I knew it would.

[UGAalum94]

Those of you who favor more gun restrictions, would you favor repealing the 2nd amendment?

I mean the part about the right of the people to bear arms not being abridged is a pretty broad right. Would you prefer it read something more like, "the right of the people to bear arms should only be abridge when the government, acting of behalf of more progressive people, deems it necessary?"

It seems to be the way a lot of people read it. It might be a more honest assessment of what people expect.

Everyone in this thread seems to accept that the "right" can be abridged in the case of mental illness. How far would you be willing to go?

ETA: this could be an entertaining exercise for the whole Bill of Rights. Just add or subtract what you want:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless your ideas are wildly offensive and promote impediments on the rights of others.

[ASUADPi]

You know, one thing that I would love to look at data for, or just get opinions on, why are most shootings in schools ocurring in the U.S.?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

This link has a timeline for the last 12 years in school shootings.

There have been 53 school shootings (K-12; college) in the last 12 years.

11 of them were outside the United States.

Statistically that means that roughly 80% (the exact number is 79.24%) of the school shootings have been in the United States.

Of the 33 shootings in the U.S., 33 were committed by males, 2 were committed by females and the remaining 9 were unknown (at least the website doesn't have the sex listed, or the name).

Why do we think this is?

Me personally, the video games and violence.

Video Games- they have become increasingly violent over the course of the years. Too many of my 3rd graders go home from school and the tv "babysits" them until mom and/or dad comes home.

Violence- this can come from violence in video games, violence in movies. You'd be shocked to know that probably half of my 3rd grade class (and I only have 16 students) have seen Saw. Violence can also be from the area the kids live in. For example, I work in an area that is known for gang activity. We've got gang members at school. It is a very real thing for some of these kids. If you are "breed" to see violence from a young age, it's not going to effect you.

Violence can also be the form of peer violence, bullying. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the perfect canidates for anti-bullying campaigns. Not that them shooting up the school was an appropriate method for them to deal with the bullying issues, but they were teenagers and teenagers are emotional and don't think rationally, to them shooting up the school, and "getting back" at the bullies, was the last resort.

Now, more recently, we are seeing shooters who aren't quite mentally sane.

I mean as a society, we need to figure out a way to fix this. I find it throughly depressing (the stats that I stated earlier). Even though I work at an elementary school, don't think that the thought of violence doesn't cross my mind every day, but I also realize that I have a job to do and I can't live in fear.

What would some of y'all offer as solutions?

[Rudey]

I want to join a militia to defend my 2nd amendment rights. How about you guys?

-Rudey

[UGAalum94]

Following up on those stats, what countries with as large or larger populations than the US have the same degree of personal liberty?

No doubt, we've always been a pretty violent bunch and we've always had a pretty ethnically and economically diverse population, which to me would present more occasions for violence, if we look at history to predict why people don't always get along.

We've also got a ridiculously sensationalistic media which I think has contributed to number of school shootings. I'm not saying other countries don't; I'm sure they do, but I think the media has play a big role in influencing the student shooters in many of the US shootings.

[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.

[AKA_Monet]

I was trained to shoot a 22, Glock and Winchester Rifle. Ironically, I cannot target due to a field cut in my optic nerve. So I plan on refraining from ever concealing a weapon. I will leave that to the experts.

Having worked on a campus during a shooting where 3 professors lost their lives, the plan for this kind of incident is always retrospective. We NEVER know when someone will flip out.

The other issue is there are quite a few students who grew up in a "demilitarized zone". Either in the US or foreign. Some of these kids actually can fire of a sub-automatic and hit their targets... Especially the children who are now adults from foreign countries. And let's think about how many kids who are now adults that grew up in gangland.

I do not want to restrict one's access to guns, but I have lost friends due to gun violence for dumb reasons. And to have it concealed weapons on a college campus, the ivory tower, what are we espousing? Higher learning? But to take that lunatic out, the kinds of guns he had--do you all think a Glock would have taken him out before he killed? Just asking?

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

I was trained to shoot a 22, Glock and Winchester Rifle. Ironically, I cannot target due to a field cut in my optic nerve. So I plan on refraining from ever concealing a weapon. I will leave that to the experts.

Having worked on a campus during a shooting where 3 professors lost their lives, the plan for this kind of incident is always retrospective. We NEVER know when someone will flip out.

The other issue is there are quite a few students who grew up in a "demilitarized zone". Either in the US or foreign. Some of these kids actually can fire of a sub-automatic and hit their targets... Especially the children who are now adults from foreign countries. And let's think about how many kids who are now adults that grew up in gangland.

I do not want to restrict one's access to guns, but I have lost friends due to gun violence for dumb reasons. And to have it concealed weapons on a college campus, the ivory tower, what are we espousing? Higher learning? But to take that lunatic out, the kinds of guns he had--do you all think a Glock would have taken him out before he killed? Just asking?

You're right about us not knowing. I think it is a valid conversation to have, but we have to be careful about assuming one of us with a weapon could have stopped it. That said, I think those who scream that we'd have 20 people dead instead of 6 are even more ridiculous.

Regarding your question about a Glock, sure, absolutely. Now, I don't know that it would have kept everyone alive, but I think under the right circumstances the damage certainly could have been mitigated. I'm not a Glock fan, but 2 in the chest or one in the head from a 9mm, .40 or .45 Glock is going to severely limit the ability of someone to keep up a barrage of gunfire. As most gun owners will admit, adrenaline and stress is different for each person, and who knows how well they'll perform. But a moderately trained individual can make head and center mass shots from 30-45 feet, and well placed (or enough) rounds from a Glock or any other pistol would have a very good chance of impairing the assailant. So I'm surely not saying it is a certainty, but I do wish one of those students at VT or NIU had been a well trained individual carrying a gun. Perhaps some of the loss could have been avoided.

[skylark]

All this Glock-talk makes me think of the Chuck Norris thread.

[macallan25]

A Glock would be fine.

In a perfect world two in each knee cap would be sufficient for me. That way that sick motherfucker is still alive and doesn't get to take the easy way out via suicide or having someone else do the job for him.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

As most gun owners will admit, adrenaline and stress is different for each person, and who knows how well they'll perform. But a moderately trained individual can make head and center mass shots from 30-45 feet, and well placed (or enough) rounds from a Glock or any other pistol would have a very good chance of impairing the assailant. So I'm surely not saying it is a certainty, but I do wish one of those students at VT or NIU had been a well trained individual carrying a gun. Perhaps some of the loss could have been avoided.

I do not know about folks responses, even those who are moderately trained.

I would like to hear from my former and current combat military GCers and law enforcement GCers to hear their take on the situation since they are probably the best to answer a very highly inflammatory and lethal situation...

All I know is I could probably EASILY get a weapon, but because I cannot visualize my target, even after breathing, I would miss it by 1 foot. It is the oddest thing that I have. So, I would be one in danger when a person would lose it.

My opinion, at best, the poor untrained folks stay calm to not draw attention to the assailant and/or play dead; and if possible SAFELY AND QUIETLY attempt leaving the premises. Of course I know it is 20/20, but IMHO...

Now, the universities and colleges could impose a lockdown of the school with restricted access through their streets and everyone has to show an identification, also they can impose a neighborhood curfew around the surrounding area... That is a Homeland Security kind of thing and everyone would feel they are part of an "institution"--yes, just like prison... I am not saying that I would advocate that, but a university or college could do that...

[texas*princess]

Geez.

I didn't even think it was possible to sell GUNS over THE INTERNET.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...shooters_N.htm

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The online gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter said it was an unnerving coincidence that he also sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five students at Northern Illinois University.
Eric Thompson said his website, www.topglock.com, sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide.

Another website run by Thompson's company, www.thegunstore.com, also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

All I know is I could probably EASILY get a weapon, but because I cannot visualize my target, even after breathing, I would miss it by 1 foot. It is the oddest thing that I have. So, I would be one in danger when a person would lose it.

My opinion, at best, the poor untrained folks stay calm to not draw attention to the assailant and/or play dead; and if possible SAFELY AND QUIETLY attempt leaving the premises.

In regards to your accuracy it might be an issue of having your dominant eye on one side of your body while having your dominant hand on the other.

As far as “playing dead,” I would only suggest that if you have been seriously wounded. It would be very difficult for anyone in that situation to suppress their natural reactions to a life threatening situation to convincingly play dead. Let the flight response take over and escape the situation; it’s much more difficult to hit a moving target. Of course the NIU Gunman had a shotgun at close range so his shooting prowess wasn’t a major issue.

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Geez.

I didn't even think it was possible to sell GUNS over THE INTERNET.

You can purchase firearms online but the delivery must go through a licensed firearms dealer.