2

4/16/2007 9:13:40 PM

Exactly what Duke said

Also, you'd still have to be 21 so the vast majority of freshmen and sophomores wouldnt even be eligible...let alone you cant have anything on your record 3 years prior

4/16/2007 9:17:18 PM

somehow, thats not very reassuring

4/16/2007 9:23:17 PM

Quote :

"1) There are a lot of depressed/suicidal people on campus as is. Giving them easy access to a gun would mean that there would be a lot more incidents like this in the future. 2) The amount of stolen/lost weapons would skyrocket, effectively arming criminals. 3) The amount of accidental discharges and involuntary deaths nationwide annually would far surpass the deaths in all of these isolated incidents combined. 4) I would not step foot on a campus full of students with guns....nor would professors want to teach here."

1) People that would comit these attrocities already have access to guns. I seriously doubt that the number of massacres on campus would grow simply because the person planning the massacre could now store and cary his gun on campus legaly as opposed to illegaly

2) One would hope and presume that if you were carrying the weapon on your person, than it wouldn't be lost of stolen. Your fear seems unfounded as it hasn't played out in any of the areas where concealed cary is already legal.

3) Again, one would presume that the type of person who would go through the process of getting a CCP would be the type of person who is capable of understanding how to operate a firearm.

4) Why? Do you honestly fear that the only thing keeping you safe from the person sitting next to you in class is that they can't legaly posess a gun on campus? Do you think most of your classmates are prevented from going on a shooting rampage because the law says they can't? Would you equally fear for your life on a military base, in a police station or at a gun show?

4/16/2007 9:34:33 PM

i foresee a lot of gun lovers making claims that liberals will be reactionary over this while at the same time using it as a call to arms (i know, cheap pun) to pass legislation that expands the concealed carry laws and not being able to see the irony

i probably wont be disappointed

4/16/2007 9:41:51 PM

Quote :

"3) Again, one would presume that the type of person who would go through the process of getting a CCP would be the type of person who is capable of understanding how to operate a firearm."

You would think someone with the mental capacity to get into a relatively selective university such as VT would be rational enough not to commit an act such as this. Your first mistake is assuming rationality. If anything, people who get concealed permits are probably less rational and are more paranoid than the average citizen, unless they have a specific reason (work in a bad neighborhood etc.)

4/16/2007 9:42:01 PM

Quote :

"You would think someone with the mental capacity to get into a relatively selective university such as VT would be rational enough not to commit an act such as this. Your first mistake is assuming rationality."

That is your mistake not mine. The irrational will be irrational, regardless of the law, as this example clearly shows. No law will prevent a murderer from killing.

Quote :

"If anything, people who get concealed permits are probably less rational and are more paranoid than the average citizen, unless they have a specific reason (work in a bad neighborhood etc.)"

There is a difference between paranoia and prepardness. It is a fine line, but it's there. You put a seat belt on, not because you're paranoid that someone will ram your car today, but to ensure that in the event that someone does ram your car, you are protected. So it is with a CCP, you don't get it expecting to get into a life or death situation, you get it to ensure your protection in the event you do get into a life or death situation. And as this example also clearly shows, you don't have to be in a bad neighborhood to be shot to death.

As far as being paranoid goes, you are the one suggesting the only thing keeping people who already carry guns legally every day from comming on to campus and killing you is the law that says they can't do that.

4/16/2007 9:51:19 PM

for me wearing my seat belt is a reaction to the perceived threat, i recognize car accidents as something that happen often. if the chance of getting into a car wreck was really small i probably wouldnt wear my seat belt.

4/16/2007 9:53:55 PM

the same could be applied to any other defensive measures people take in their daily lives: smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, locked doors, various forms of insurance, hell even taking self defense / martial arts classes.

4/16/2007 10:04:26 PM

Well, I guess you and I have different perceptions of the problem. I think the problem is that people brought guns to campus. You argue that somehow that allowing more guns on campus will somehow solve this problem. I also think that we have the technology to be able to find these illegal weapons. Its unfortunate that our policies are reactive and it will take something like this to bring about some change.

4/16/2007 10:04:42 PM

Quote :

"are probably less rational and are more paranoid than the average citizen,"

i love how libs always think a person interested in personal protection is in some way paranoid

4/16/2007 10:10:20 PM

Hey, I don't have any problem with private ownership of weapons, I own a 9mm and recently sold an AR-15 and a 12 gauge in the gun classifieds thread. I don't view allowing students to carry guns on campus as a particularly reasonable act. Thats neither liberal or republican.

4/16/2007 10:20:37 PM

Quote :

"Well, I guess you and I have different perceptions of the problem. I think the problem is that people brought guns to campus."

No, the problem is this psychopath exists in the first place. Second to this is the fact that no person on that campus was legally able to stop him until campus police (if they are armed) or real police showed up on the scene. The gun is merely a tool used in the execution of his plan, but as State409c pointed out on the first page, he could have used explosives, or he could have used a rifle from a location off campus. The fact of the matter is, this person was going to kill others regardless of the laws in place.

Quote :

"You argue that somehow that allowing more guns on campus will somehow solve this problem."

That's not my argument at all. My argument is that allowing the people who are already legally allowed to carry a gun in public to also carry on campus could have mitigated or even prevented this disaster long before the police arrived. It's no guarantee to be sure, but forbidding everyone on campus from having a gun does guarantee that a shooter will be unimpeeded until the police show up.

Quote :

"I also think that we have the technology to be able to find these illegal weapons. "

You're solving the wrong problem. The problem is not the guns, it's the fact that these people are seeking guns to commit crimes and murders in the first place.

Restricting the rights of legal gun owners further would be about as effective as making tougher laws against murder to prevent these attrocities.

4/16/2007 10:21:49 PM

Quote :

"he could have used explosives, or he could have used a rifle from a location off campus"

I assume that he didn't use explosives because our laws made it too difficult for him to get access. As for the "grassy knoll" rifleman theory, chances are that if he was carrying some sort of rifle, he would have been easier to spot (not concealable). It It is also not likely he would not have been able to kill 32 people execution style.

Quote :

"My argument is that allowing the people who are already legally allowed to carry a gun in public to also carry on campus could have mitigated or even prevented this disaster long before the police arrived"

I don't believe that. If students were going to "prevent" such an attack, that would mean they would likely have had to make the determination to shoot first, which would make them de facto law enforcement personnel. The probability that they would make a poor judgment call and shoot an innocent bystander or misinterpret the situation is much greater than being put into a situation like what happened today.

4/16/2007 10:43:06 PM

Shoot first? What are you smoking? It takes time to get at a concealed weapon. Odds are, the student would return fire after the attacker had fired six or more shots.

4/16/2007 10:47:27 PM

If you want a gun, you must do a 2 year term in a military branch and must be discharged honorably.

4/16/2007 10:48:48 PM

^^My problem is, in a situation like this, it could create my mayhem if you have multiple people with guns in this type situation.

How do you know who is the original attacker and who isn't?

^That creates the problem for individuals who are not physically capable of serving in the military, or have moral problems with serving in the armed forces.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 10:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2007 10:49:45 PM

thats a good question

4/16/2007 10:51:31 PM

how about two years of gov't service?

there are many non combat jobs in the military

and if you're physically incapable, there are plenty of things the gov't could put you to work as

4/16/2007 10:54:48 PM

woo who, I can own guns under your logic.

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2007 10:58:25 PM

I don't see how we got off onto the subject of mandatory military service.

4/16/2007 10:58:33 PM

this thread is about gun laws

i suggested an idea (which I don't necessarily support)

if they object to the armed forces, we should create enlisted possibilities of the other two uniformed services (NOAA and Public Health) at the very least we would be providing people education and job skills

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 11:01 PM. Reason : a]

4/16/2007 10:59:25 PM

also, by government, do you mean state government or federal government?

4/16/2007 11:01:00 PM

Quote :

"^^My problem is, in a situation like this, it could create my mayhem if you have multiple people with guns in this type situation. How do you know who is the original attacker and who isn't?"

Easy, defenders in such a situation are usually hiding in a defensible location surrounded by other innocents under their protection, as they are taught to do before being issued a CCP. And, once the police arrive, eagerly put down their guns and emerge with their hands up before being cleared by witnesses.

4/16/2007 11:04:04 PM

Quote :

"Easy, defenders in such a situation are usually hiding in a defensible location surrounded by other innocents under their protection, as they are taught to do before being issued a CCP. And, once the police arrive, eagerly put down their guns and emerge with their hands up before being cleared by witnesses."

say you have a ccp and I have a ccp. I know there is a shooter in the building, but I don't know who it is. you are by your self in the hallway with the shooter and I see you shoot the shooter, I then shoot you. I don't know who the shooter is, but I see you shoot someone else.

4/16/2007 11:06:50 PM

I would say that a much tougher standard needs to be made for handguns. Its my opinion that citizens can easily retain their right to bear arms with long guns that are not easily concealable. From my military experience, I got used to carrying a weapon (M16A2) and got comfortable with it. I never got used to carrying a handgun. Theres just something about it thats insidious and hard to describe. I'm sure that if I went to Iraq it would have been a welcome addition, but I theres a 9mm in my closet that I'm not particularly fond of.

4/16/2007 11:06:59 PM

How about issuing CCWs for nonlethal weapons? rubber bullets ftw

4/16/2007 11:09:24 PM

Quote :

"I assume that he didn't use explosives because our laws made it too difficult for him to get access."

Or that the gun was the tool he decided to use. It's not like explosives are particularly difficult to make.

Quote :

"As for the "grassy knoll" rifleman theory, chances are that if he was carrying some sort of rifle, he would have been easier to spot (not concealable)."

The texas belltower shooter managed to get 2 or 3 rifles and a shotgun up the belltower with little trouble.

Quote :

"I don't believe that. If students were going to "prevent" such an attack, that would mean they would likely have had to make the determination to shoot first, which would make them de facto law enforcement personnel. The probability that they would make a poor judgment call and shoot an innocent bystander or misinterpret the situation is much greater than being put into a situation like what happened today."

And is that theory demonstrated by other self defense cases with a gun, which occur almost every day? Again, you're acting like the school is some sort of mystical area with powers that make people, who are otherwise entrusted to cary and properly shoot a firearm, completely incapable of doing so in this senario.

Quote :

"My problem is, in a situation like this, it could create my mayhem if you have multiple people with guns in this type situation. How do you know who is the original attacker and who isn't?"

Practice and training, the same way that cops and military learn. Force on force training. They do it in martial arts classes, why not gun classes?

Quote :

"this thread is about gun laws i suggested an idea (which I don't necessarily support) if they object to the armed forces, we should create enlisted possibilities of the other two uniformed services (NOAA and Public Health) at the very least we would be providing people education and job skills "

You don't see an inherrent conflict of interest in allowing the government to decide who gets rights and who doesn't? Expecially when the rights in question are designed to protect us from a tyranical government?

4/16/2007 11:11:05 PM

I support bbehe's suggestion in permitting non-lethal weapons for self defense.

4/16/2007 11:13:58 PM

^^to be honest, I don't. Times have changed, we no longer need weapons to revolt against a tyrannical gov't. Now I'm not for getting rid of guns, but I'd like to see stronger restrictions on it, like mandatory training and maybe a psych eval (maaaaaybe, i'd rather see the mandatory training) and to pay for it, gun owner tax, something small like 50 bucks a years would go a long ways.

would you have any objections to CCP permits only being issued to military/former military?



[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : a]

4/16/2007 11:14:51 PM

Quote :

"say you have a ccp and I have a ccp. I know there is a shooter in the building, but I don't know who it is. you are by your self in the hallway with the shooter and I see you shoot the shooter, I then shoot you. I don't know who the shooter is, but I see you shoot someone else."

Then, I am afraid to say, even if I survive you shooting me, we are both going to jail for failure to obey the legal requirements of our CC Permits. We must hide first and then return fire if reasonable, and standing in a hallway is not a reasonable definition of hiding.

Or, more to the point, with your gun pointed at me and my back turned (presumably facing whoever I shot) you failed to challenge me to disarm, choosing instead to shoot first, landing yourself in murder charges.

That said, mistakes happen. Is it reasonable to suggest that just because I could be killed by you in this scenario that both me and you deserve to be unarmed? How many lives were saved because I gave my life taking out a maniac with a gun?

[Edited on April 16, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/16/2007 11:16:26 PM

Quote :

"would you have any objections to CCW permits only being issued to military/former military?"

Dude, I met a lot of people in the Army that I would be scared to be around if I knew they had a weapon. There is probably a more valid psychological evaluation metric that could be used to determine fitness to carry.

4/16/2007 11:20:41 PM

Quote :

"would you have any objections to CCP permits only being issued to military/former military?"

I would. Not everyone who is competent and responsible with firearms is or has been in the military. My dad was in the army and he tought me firearm responsibility from day one. A lot of people are in the same position as me. Also would that mean a non-military person who is a responsible gun owner/user who works in a rough neighborhood couldn't get one?

I wouldnt have any problem with some increase in the training necessary to get a handgun or a CCP, although I think some of you who haven't taken the class don't quite understand what all is required. In short, if you're at least 21 you sign up for a class. You have to take a test about various laws and situations learned in the class. You have to show the instructors that you understand what to do in certain situations, where you can and can't carry, etc. Aside from the written test is the field test. You have to have a certain accuracy and a minimum of 50 shots I believe. The instructors will then at least know if you seem capable of responsibly loading, handling and discharging a firearm. Then once you have proven to the experienced instructors that you have both the mental and physical ability to safely and properly use a firearm, you go to the sherrif's office. Once you fill out their forms and submit your fingerprints to a database. Then they have 90 days to notify you of whether or not their extensive background check gives them sufficient reason to believe you should or shouldnt be capable of getting the concealed carry permit. If they don't like anything about your record, all they have to do is notify within that 90 days that you have been denied.

Thats how it currently is, in North Carolina at least. It's not exactly something that anyone can easily get. So if you're entrusting the citizens to be able to competently keep a concealed handgun out in public, why not extend them the legal privledge to do so on campus?

ps: in the majority of crimes committed by individuals with guns, the guns were stolen/bought illegally

4/16/2007 11:28:33 PM

You know, I remember after 9/11, a lot of people talked about arming pilots or stewardesses on commercial aircraft as a way to protect passengers from terrorism. The problems with that were

1) there were now weapons on the plane that could be grabbed or commandeered
2) an accidental discharge was a lot more likely to bring down the plane than terrorism itself
3) even used properly, a single missed shot could accomplish this as well

I see this relating to weapons in the classroom in that the potential for disaster is more problematic the problem it aimed to address.

4/16/2007 11:39:54 PM

Thats not really a good comparison because we're not talking about arming all students or teachers. Can you not understand that?

You make it sound like a campus would suddenly be an environment where all people had guns. In reality it would just be more like a microcosm of society right now. Certain people, who have shown that they are qualified and law abiding, get these permits. The majority of people don't have them. It would be the same way on a campus.

4/16/2007 11:47:19 PM

I dunno, its just gonna take some solid numbers to prove to me that the solution proposed isn't more dangerous than the problem itself.

4/16/2007 11:50:25 PM

Pilots now can carry weapons in the cockpit, per NRA, and the cockpit will be locked. If you trust your life with the pilots, I'm sure you can trust him with a gun. The ammunition will be frangible rounds, which break up immediately upon hitting a surface.

4/16/2007 11:55:18 PM

Quote :

"All people are saying is that: -There exists a reasonably sized base of gun owners who currently possess concealed carry permits. -At present, they are specifically barred from carrying on at least most college campuses. -However, they DO carry at all kinds of other places. Amazingly enough, there is no rash of stolen/lost weapons, accidental discharges, or involuntary deaths. -These owners are statistically extremely responsible. More so than the police, according to at least some studies. "

Does not logically lead to...

Quote :

"-If we simply stopped specifically excluding campus as a legal place to carry, incidents could be avoided or at least reduced in severity. the risk vs reward trade-off would be favor"

It's your assertion that it wouldn't create problems on campus to allow this, just like it's others' assertions that it will create problems. It's not possible to determine if if would be worth it, unless you know of some campus that allows CCW permits, and is very stable.

4/16/2007 11:56:58 PM

A fundamental question to bear in mind through all of this discussion is:

How many people who are willing to go out and shoot someone maliciously (in any situation other than a life-or-death self defense situation) are willing to obey a law about carrying a weapon somewhere they're not supposed to? I would guess not many...does a bank robber worry about wearing his seatbelt?

Also there is some merit in the fact that alcohol can be abused in college, alcohol leads to irrational decisions, etc. Aside from the fact that you have to be 21 to get a concealed carry permit, I understand there are concerns about allowing irresponsible people to possess guns on a populated college campus. Would some of you be open to a law that allowed people who currently have CCPs to be able to carry on a college campus if they are a certain age? Even though according to the state the age of 21, along with background checks/training, is sufficient to get a CCP, how would some of you who are opposed to any guns on campus feel about a minimum age of 25 on campus for example? 30?

Btw, how old are the youngest cops or public safety officers?

4/17/2007 12:15:40 AM

^

Quote :

"How old do you have to be in order to become a Police Officer? ANSWER: Each State is different but for the most part, you need to be 21 years old to get hired. Some states will allow you to enter the police academy at the age of 20. I have heard rumors that there are states that allow you to become an officer at age 18, although I am not sure about that."

http://www.lifeonthebeat.com/police_academy.htm

It's a cutesy link, but I trust it.

[Edited on April 17, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2007 12:26:17 AM

I don't see how this Va. Tech thing has any bearing on gun control anyway.

Let's say theoretically that legally concealed weapons were allowed and that the guy was shot after shooting 5 or 10 people. People would STILL be flipping out and this thread would STILL exist.

There's no way to reasonable determine what could have happened if things were different, in a situation with such an obvious singularity in the formula (a psychopathic killer). If CCWs were allowed, the guy might have factored that in to his plot. If guns were completely banned, that could be factored in to his plot as well. Maybe banning the guns completely in VA would have worked, or maybe allowing CCWs would have worked. There's no way to say.

It's moronic to assert that action A would have changed these events.

The shooting has more bearing on how disturbed or bad students are treated, than on gun control laws.

And lastly, it cheapens in the most sickening of ways the deaths of the students to tie this to such an insignificant issue in US society like gun control. When it comes down to it, the only bad position to have on gun control is either no control, or an outright ban. Anything in between is not going to cause meaningful change in crime (and the polar opposites say bad things about or society) without significant drawbacks.

4/17/2007 12:43:45 AM

Quote :

"yes that is exactly what i'm saying. Cultures with strong family values that last a lifetime and don't just stop at age 18 don't have many problems like this unless its due to serious mental problems/genetic issues etc..."

winner. unfortunately, this is pretty much incomprehensible and difficult to convey to cultures with weak values.

4/17/2007 12:56:32 AM

If other students had had CCPs the shooter likely would not have known that they had weapons. The whole point of concealing a weapon is to prevent others from knowing that you have it. This suggests that it may not have affected his decision were that the case. On the other hand, the arguement can be made that if the shooter were aware of CCPs on campus, this may have affected his choice of action given that school shooters often look to inflict as many casualties as possible with the least possible effectual resistance. It is impossible to speculate either way weather CCPs would have deterred this inndividual.

However it is entirely possible that a trained individual who possesed a firearm could have effectively challenged the shooter and possibley reduced the body count.

As for his choice of handguns versus rifles, it really would not have made a difference. A long weapon can be concealed under longer clothing (ie a long coat) and the weapon must be revealed to fire it anyway (which was the shooters ultimate goal). Not to mention that assualt rifles (were the shooter to use one) offer larger clips and a higher rate of fire. With practice even a novice shooter can quickly reload an assualt rifle with a 30 round clip.

Gun control laws would have no effect on cases such as this given that if a person is willing to mass murder in the first place, a law restricting what gun they legally can own will not stop them. Also consider that most people who intend to commit crimes do not take the time to register the guns they own or obey gun laws. They buy and use guns illegaly. Gun control laws mostly punnish responsible gun owners.

Gun control and CCPS are really a moot point in this situation anyway. The fact is that one derranged individual killed a lot of people, and that is a tregedy.

4/17/2007 2:43:31 AM

Quote :

"Let's say theoretically that legally concealed weapons were allowed and that the guy was shot after shooting 5 or 10 people. People would STILL be flipping out and this thread would STILL exist."

maybe so...even if the guy was got in the dorm at the first shooting...but how is 5-10 deaths not the desirable outcome compared to the 32 person (+1) shooting? I'm not saying that X number of deaths would not have occurred...but think about a madman shooting on a public street instead of a college campus...if someone in the general vicinity had a pistol, they might easily limit the number of deaths by a significant amount

Quote :

"And lastly, it cheapens in the most sickening of ways the deaths of the students to tie this to such an insignificant issue in US society like gun control"

IN GENERAL, i agree that bringing up any laws or legal wordings can potentially downplay the deaths of all the Virginia Tech students today

However I don't think the issue of gun control is "insignificant" and I think, regardless of if you agree or disagree, there are certainly some valid points brought forth by this unbelievable massacre

4/17/2007 2:47:40 AM

Quote :

"I hate when people use instances like this for political gain. We need to defend against the knee jerk reactions from both sides of the aisle."

4/17/2007 8:31:14 AM

Quote :

"i foresee a lot of gun lovers making claims that liberals will be reactionary over this while at the same time using it as a call to arms (i know, cheap pun) to pass legislation that expands the concealed carry laws and not being able to see the irony"

whats wrong with expanding the CCW laws? It's not like they are changing the constitution to allow for it... unlike what the knee jerk reaction of the left will be.

no one is using anything as a "call to arms", people might be asking for a basic right to be extended into more places, but no one is saying "grab your rifle, we gotta go shoot the bad guys"

Quote :

" If anything, people who get concealed permits are probably less rational and are more paranoid than the average citizen, unless they have a specific reason (work in a bad neighborhood etc.)"

my my, aren't we quick to make assumptions that are wrong

Quote :

"That's not my argument at all. My argument is that allowing the people who are already legally allowed to carry a gun in public to also carry on campus could have mitigated or even prevented this disaster long before the police arrived. It's no guarantee to be sure, but forbidding everyone on campus from having a gun does guarantee that a shooter will be unimpeeded until the police show up."

pretty much sums it up

Quote :

"If you want a gun, you must do a 2 year term in a military branch and must be discharged honorably"

Quote :

"how about two years of gov't service? there are many non combat jobs in the military and if you're physically incapable, there are plenty of things the gov't could put you to work as "

wow, just wow.... are you implying that people are not capable of using firearms safely unless they've worked in the military or government?

guess what, civilians usually beat the military people in shooting competitions... and it's a known fact that most ccw holders are better shots than LEOs... and most shoot more often than many LEOs

or do you just not have a clue what the 2nd amendment is about in the first place?

Quote :

"I would say that a much tougher standard needs to be made for handguns. Its my opinion that citizens can easily retain their right to bear arms with long guns that are not easily concealable. From my military experience, I got used to carrying a weapon (M16A2) and got comfortable with it. I never got used to carrying a handgun. Theres just something about it thats insidious and hard to describe. I'm sure that if I went to Iraq it would have been a welcome addition, but I theres a 9mm in my closet that I'm not particularly fond of."

what about women that jog at night? what about old ladies that live in a rough neighborhood...

not everyone is an in shape white male living in a safe place...

I'd rather not strap my AR on my back and scare people when I can conceal a handgun on me and not scare anyone

I'll buy your 9mm for the right price depending on make/model

Quote :

"to be honest, I don't. Times have changed, we no longer need weapons to revolt against a tyrannical gov't. Now I'm not for getting rid of guns, but I'd like to see stronger restrictions on it, like mandatory training and maybe a psych eval (maaaaaybe, i'd rather see the mandatory training) and to pay for it, gun owner tax, something small like 50 bucks a years would go a long ways. would you have any objections to CCP permits only being issued to military/former military? "

I'm saddened by your willingness to bend over and accept anything the govt shoves your way

firearms owners pay plenty of "taxes" as it is, pistol purchase permits costs money... and a CCW is not cheap or quick... you can easily have $500 and 100 days wrapped up in acquiring a pistol to carry everyday, thats not counting the cost of the firearm, or the background checks you go through from before the purchase to the day you carry legally.

I have a huge problem with only military and former military people having permits... liek I said before, what about the lady that jogs in the evening, what about the old lady that lives in a rough neighborhood... it's not just "gun toting rednecks" that want to make it home at the end of the day

^ yep, it'll be interesting to see what bills get thrown back up for vote

4/17/2007 9:10:53 AM

Quote :

"Cultures with strong family values that last a lifetime and don't just stop at age 18 don't have many problems like this unless its due to serious mental problems/genetic issues etc.."

i'd say there was a strong possibility of mental problem in this case. At some point people have to take responsibility for their actions.

4/17/2007 9:17:43 AM

Quote :

"I'm saddened by your willingness to bend over and accept anything the govt shoves your way"

So you have a real fear that one day in your lifetime you will have to rise up against the government using firepower?

4/17/2007 9:21:22 AM

not really


protection for myself on a day to day basis is more important to me... aka getting home alive to see another day



but if the time were to come, I'd be more willing to do something than some other folks

but wait, i thought you hated and despised the government?
I'm tired of people that don't bother to ensure their own safety telling me that I can't ensure my own safety... it's not my fault you choose to make yourself a potential victim

4/17/2007 9:29:18 AM

Quote :

"Well, I guess you and I have different perceptions of the problem. I think the problem is that people brought guns to campus. You argue that somehow that allowing more guns on campus will somehow solve this problem. I also think that we have the technology to be able to find these illegal weapons. "

no, the fact that this crazy fucker started shooting people is the problem. nothing bad happened simply because he brought a gun onto campus.

the guns we're talking about being on campus aren't in the hands of problematic individuals. that is a FACT.

we do have the tech to find illegal guns, but is it practical to put metal detectors at every door at every college? No--and if we did, he'd just shoot up some place like the brickyard.

Quote :

"I don't believe that. If students were going to "prevent" such an attack, that would mean they would likely have had to make the determination to shoot first, which would make them de facto law enforcement personnel. The probability that they would make a poor judgment call and shoot an innocent bystander or misinterpret the situation is much greater than being put into a situation like what happened today. "

Nobody is talking about them shooting first. He's saying that if a CCP holder had been in the class, the outcome would've almost certainly been far less tragic, and it's possible that (even if he obviously couldn't prevent the shooter from firing some shots) nobody would've been killed.

Quote :

"If you want a gun, you must do a 2 year term in a military branch and must be discharged honorably."

Besides the fact that such an idea is completely ridiculous, a huge % (most??) people in the military have little or no exposure to firearms. The trigger pullers are a small, small minority...there are a helluva lot more people sitting behind computer screens or driving trucks. The USMC trains everyone with a rifle...I know the Navy doesn't. I doubt the Air Force does. Even the Marines don't train most of their enlisted personnel with a pistol.

Quote :

"^^My problem is, in a situation like this, it could create my mayhem if you have multiple people with guns in this type situation. How do you know who is the original attacker and who isn't?"

Hey, it could happen.

but (a) it could very easily be a totally clear cut situation, and (b) I believe that most CCP holders wouldn't just go spraying lead and hoping they got it right.

Risk vs reward, but I think it's a very worthwhile tradeoff.

Quote :

"how about two years of gov't service? there are many non combat jobs in the military and if you're physically incapable, there are plenty of things the gov't could put you to work as"

OK, then, what does any of that stuff have to do with being a gun owner? You don't--and shouldn't--have to pay dues in that fashion to own a weapon. Demonstrating competancy is another matter.

Quote :

"say you have a ccp and I have a ccp. I know there is a shooter in the building, but I don't know who it is. you are by your self in the hallway with the shooter and I see you shoot the shooter, I then shoot you. I don't know who the shooter is, but I see you shoot someone else."

Well, that's a risk the CCP holder assumed when he weighed his options and took action. He put himself at risk--not the poor, unarmed, innocent, helpless bystanders I thought we were concerned about.

Quote :

"I would say that a much tougher standard needs to be made for handguns. Its my opinion that citizens can easily retain their right to bear arms with long guns that are not easily concealable. From my military experience, I got used to carrying a weapon (M16A2) and got comfortable with it. I never got used to carrying a handgun. Theres just something about it thats insidious and hard to describe."

I don't know what kind of tougher standard you could reasonably employ.

I do know what you're saying about handguns, though. I think it's because it's easier to accidentally shoot yourself or point it in an unintended direction. I'm comfortable with pretty much everything from a .22LR up through an M2 .50 cal, but after many thousands of rounds fired, I still get that feeling you're talking about just a tiny bit every time I pick up a gun--and particularly a handgun. I think that's probably a good thing.

Quote :

"How about issuing CCWs for nonlethal weapons? rubber bullets ftw"

Well, to start with, rubber bullets aren't nonlethal. They're less lethal. Second, especially if it involved relaxed standards, THAT would make me uneasy--people might be less responsible if they didn't feel the weight of the decision to take someone's life. Finally, if the shit hit the fan enough that I needed to shoot someone, 9 times out of 10, I want the most lethal bullets I can load into my weapon.

Quote :

"Again, you're acting like the school is some sort of mystical area with powers that make people, who are otherwise entrusted to cary and properly shoot a firearm, completely incapable of doing so in this senario."

Exactly. that's the biggest thing about this argument that I just can't wrap my mind around. I don't see how people don't "get it".

Quote :

"would you have any objections to CCP permits only being issued to military/former military?"

Yes. That's horrible, totally ill-conceived idea, for a variety of reasons.

Quote :

"I dunno, its just gonna take some solid numbers to prove to me that the solution proposed isn't more dangerous than the problem itself. "

Those numbers exist, and they're pretty solid. I'll try to find them later if nobody else beats me to it.

Quote :

"It's your assertion that it wouldn't create problems on campus to allow this, just like it's others' assertions that it will create problems. It's not possible to determine if if would be worth it, unless you know of some campus that allows CCW permits, and is very stable."

Unless you believe that there is something about a college campus that causes CCP owners who have no problems carrying anywhere else to suddenly go raving mad, howl at the moon, and shoot the place up, then my argument absolutely does follow logically.

Quote :

"Also there is some merit in the fact that alcohol can be abused in college, alcohol leads to irrational decisions, etc. Aside from the fact that you have to be 21 to get a concealed carry permit, I understand there are concerns about allowing irresponsible people to possess guns on a populated college campus. "

Alcohol can be abused anywhere, and you already can't have a concealed weapon anywhere alcohol is being served or sold. A college campus would be no different.

In addition, any reasonable person would be concerned about "allowing irresponsible people to possess guns on a populated college campus." However, CCP holders are not "irresponsible people".

Quote :

"Let's say theoretically that legally concealed weapons were allowed and that the guy was shot after shooting 5 or 10 people. People would STILL be flipping out and this thread would STILL exist."

People would still be flipping out over such an atrocity, sure, but why would this thread exist? What would people be arguing for, then?

Quote :

"I hate when people use instances like this for political gain. We need to defend against the knee jerk reactions from both sides of the aisle."

Concur, believe it or not...but this is something that I've long felt to be an issue--at this time, though, it's been brought to our collective attention. Also, I don't believe that anyone is arguing for any unreasonable or ridiculous changes on the pro-gun side.

4/17/2007 9:38:31 AM