US students lobby to carry guns at university

[masonite]

US students lobby to carry guns at university

By Washington correspondent Kim Landers

Posted Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:44am AEST


On the eve of the first anniversary of America's worst campus shooting, a growing number of US university students are demanding the right to carry guns to class.

Their push began after a lone gunman shot dead 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech.

While most American universities ban weapons, these students insist they have a right to self defence and that arming themselves could prevent a tragedy.

As winter slowly turns to spring, families and friends of the 32 people shot dead at Virginia Tech a year ago are preparing for a day of remembrance.

But despite enduring such a tragedy, Virginia Tech is now home to the biggest chapter of a new group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

Formed in the wake of the shootings, this group now boasts 25,000 members who want the right to carry concealed weapons on university grounds.

Andrew Dysart is a former marine who is in his final semester of a criminal justice degree. He heads the George Mason University chapter of the group.

"We're a group of students that many of us already for different reasons carry concealed handguns legally off campus every day of our lives," he said.

"We just believe that we should be able to have that same ability on campus.

"I got a concealed handgun permit when I was still in the marine corps and then afterwards started looking at different things and carrying a handgun for self-defence at different times when I thought it was necessary."

He says if he was allowed to carry his weapon, he is confident in his ability to operate it and would be prepared to use it if somebody suddenly started shooting in the cafeteria or in the classroom.

"I am. That other aspect is also of just removing the stigma from college campuses that criminals can come on campus and have their will," he said.

Risks

Brian Siebel is a senior attorney at the Washington-based Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence.

"We've all seen the images of Animal House, and I'm sure there's the equivalent in Australia," he said.

"You know Australians like their beer, right? So certainly this is a risk and we know from a couple of studies done by Harvard researchers that college gun owners actually engage in much higher risk behaviour than the average college student.

"They're more likely than the average student to binge drink and use drugs and get in trouble with police and get arrested for drunk driving."

Utah is the only state which allows concealed weapons on uni campuses, although 16 other states have considered, but not passed similar legislation in the last year.

"The Virginia Tech shooter, had he applied in the state of Virginia for a concealed carry licence, would have been issued one before these attacks and the same would have happened for many of the people who have engaged in school shootings," Mr Siebel said.

Officials at Virginia Tech say the only guns they want on campus are the ones carried by police.

link
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/16/2218284.htm)

This whole issue has begun as a result of the VC shootings, which is why i find it so incomprehendable. There are actually people out there that believe the solution to people bringing guns to uni is for everyone to brings guns to uni!?!?! It just makes it easier for people to shoot the person they don't like. The VC shooter turned the gun on himself in the end anyway - allowing everyone to carry guns won't change the situation.

It also means petty arguments can escalate further and faster than they would without guns.

[curryking1]

The only complete solution is to stop the circulation of so many frigging guns.

And yes, all this does is make it easier for people to take that 'step' towards deciding to hurt someone.

You would think that students at a fricking university would be smarter than that.

[Mary]

Just because people can't legally bring a gun on campus doesn't mean they're not going to. It just simply means the good, law abiding students won't bring guns while the potentially dangerous, non-law abiding students will. Personally I'd rather the law abiding students be the ones with gun or at least have gun also to even out the crazies.
I'm not saying that everyone having concealed weapons on campus will magically stop potential school shooting, but I honestly don't think it will make it worse. If a person is set on shooting someone they're already planning on breaking a very serious law so do you really think they'll worry about breaking any more?

[Sadface]

The only things gun laws do is keep guns out of the hands of honest people. If you're wanting to do something illegal with your gun, I really doubt you're going to worry about whether or not it's legal to carry around. In fact, it will give you the peace of mind of knowing nobody else is packing. What do you think would have happened at VT if psycho sam pulled out his piece only to find guns pointed right back at him? I see him either giving up, or opening fire. Even if he still did the latter, the damage would be mitigated by the fact that others actually had a chance to defend themselves.

And you seem to be working on the logic that guns drive people into some sort of bloodrage. So you're saying if it were legal to carry a gun on campus you would go and start shooting people you didn't like? Do you think if someone you disliked was arguing with you, you would KILL them just because you had a gun? What? Do you think you would even buy a gun just because they were legal?

Guns don't make psychos... Vlad the Impaler, Gilles de Rais, Sawney Bean... no guns. There have always been people who are mentally ill, and will be for a long time, and taking away their weapons wouldn't make a difference. Vlad still impaled mice and small animals after he was imprisoned. They would either just continue to carry their weapon illegally, or improvise a new one.

The only people who lose are the people who'd like to carry a gun legally.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

I don't think it is crazy at all. If a psycho student is going to bring a gun to school, he is not going to care about what the law says.

As long as the students are certified to have them, I would deeply consider this option.

I live in West TX, so I am sure students break this law anyways frequently by leaving rifles in their diesel trucks. If we were to have a crazy shooter on campus, I am sure he would be dead before causing more harm... and for the record, we haven't had any shootings around west Texas that I know of

[Teh Roxor!]

I see nothing wrong with letting students have guns, I would allow it if it were my university. A single student would not be able to take down so many others if a few others were armed.

[curryking1]

It just simply means the good, law abiding students won't bring guns while the potentially dangerous, non-law abiding students will. Personally I'd rather the law abiding students be the ones with gun or at least have gun also to even out the crazies.

Let's review this.

Non-crazies w/ access guns - Will not kill other people, correct?
Crazies w/ access to guns - Will kill people, correct?

Now consider this.

More availability of guns on campus -> higher probability to easily obtain guns on campus --------->

1----> lowers threshold capacity people will be inclined to use guns to solve their problems because they know guns are easier to obtain
2----> makes it easier for all subjects who have passed that threshold to use weapons

1 + 2 combine for a compounded effect, greater than the sum of their parts, almost a vicious cycle.

Try to argue against this to the City of Toronto. I dare you to challenge them on having more circulation of guns increases gun violence and gun fatalities.

And pretty much every moderate to large university can be paralleled to it's own mini-city in a town or city.

The point is more people would be killed if you have guns rampant in your university. I'm not even sure if that's a debateable point, it will kill almost guaranteed kill more people.

P.S. What the hell happened to the asking for more police officers/trained security to be present in dense areas btw?

Why not ask the university to spend more on security? Was it not at the Virginia Tech that a student so visibly and casually walked into the university? Having a light patrol is an amazing thing. Either for immediate action or quicker response times.

My university has never fell victim to crime like this, but even without such high incidence of crime our university not only has police patrolling our campus but also our own distinguished university police force.

Isn't that a more logical approach? Instead of having vigilante justice you can have physically and mentally trained individuals at the scene with much lower response times? And police generally know what they are doing so the densest areas will generally have the most security, preventing mass murder on ridiculous scale.

If the university students should be lobbying for anything it should be protection, not making circulation of weapons in the universities fifty times easier which would evidently, as in proven to be true, increase the incidence and the likelihood of people resorting to violent gun crimes.

'Nuff said.

[Teh Roxor!]

Of course restricting guns and increasing the number of enforcers is one solution which may work, but it is one that some people just don't like for certain ideological reasons. I'll be brief: it all boils down to "I'm not a risk factor, I should be allowed to carry a gun." This is an idea I can't expect everyone to agree with, but its there.

1----> lowers threshold capacity people will be inclined to use guns to solve their problems because they know guns are easier to obtain
Do you have data to back this up? Anecdotally, no matter how many guns I have laying around I'm no more likely to see the use of a gun as a solution to my problems. This sounds similar to the "if drugs were legal, we would all start using meth" argument, which has been shown to hold no water.

The point is more people would be killed if you have guns rampant in your university. I'm not even sure if that's a debateable point, it will kill almost guaranteed kill more people.
Be very careful, that is a debatable point. Gun violence can't really always be expected to be a function of gun availability, there are many other variables to consider.

[Coded-Dude]

So why are there not rampant gun deaths at Utah unis...they permit concealed weapons?

I do think that if they do allow people to carry concealed weapons that you should be required to register with the school that you do infact carry a weapon(as well as regular gun safety classes for those who choose to carry them)

[Ihsiin]

These Americans are crazy...

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/cairn/obelix.gif

Come on, isn't obvious that no one should be allowed to bring guns to a university, be they crazy or otherwise? One shouldn't look to how to stop some nutter once he's started shooting people up; rather, one should look at how to prevent the nutter from getting started in the first place. To do this one must make sure that no one has a gun at university.
It's simple, really.

[curryking1]

Do you have data to back this up? Anecdotally, no matter how many guns I have laying around I'm no more likely to see the use of a gun as a solution to my problems.

Have you not seen data on cities around the world?

And just because you don't feel this will affect you, that doesn't automatically deny the average trend for a population.

Not everyone in a population follows all trends for one, and not everyone to the same magnitude.

But the overall trend is indeed that because there are more guns around, the population on average for the whole will more easily switch to them as an answer.

It's simply because it's made easier, not much else. If the option is easier to make, it lowers the potential one has to achieve to make it.

Places with less guns have less people committing serious crimes. And that's for cities that are closely related in other factors. Take Toronto and compare it to a 3 or 4 million size US city and tell me what data you see.

(Toronto has less circulation of firearms than even many much smaller American cities)

These Americans are crazy...

Pretty much.

[Coded-Dude]

These Americans are crazy...

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/cairn/obelix.gif

Come on, isn't obvious that no one should be allowed to bring guns to a university, be they crazy or otherwise? One shouldn't look to how to stop some nutter once he's started shooting people up; rather, one should look at how to prevent the nutter from getting started in the first place. To do this one must make sure that no one has a gun at university.
It's simple, really.


tell that to the victims and their families/friends.

Washington D.C has a ban on firearms.
Population about 600k
Here are their gun recovery statistics:

2008 - 642
2007 - 2,924
2006 - 2,655
2005 - 2,344
2004 - 2,065
2003 - 1,982

Homicides have slowly dwindled over the last 20 years, but they are still existent.
10 years ago there were 300 homicides, last year there were about 200.

This helps further prove the fact that if people want firearms and want to use them, they will.
Like many others have said, all you are doing is prohibiting law abiding citizens from defending themselves

[Sadface]

Let's review this.

Non-crazies w/ access guns - Will not kill other people, correct?
Crazies w/ access to guns - Will kill people, correct?

Now consider this.

More availability of guns on campus -> higher probability to easily obtain guns on campus --------->

1----> lowers threshold capacity people will be inclined to use guns to solve their problems because they know guns are easier to obtain
2----> makes it easier for all subjects who have passed that threshold to use weapons

1 + 2 combine for a compounded effect, greater than the sum of their parts, almost a vicious cycle.

Try to argue against this to the City of Toronto. I dare you to challenge them on having more circulation of guns increases gun violence and gun fatalities.

And pretty much every moderate to large university can be paralleled to it's own mini-city in a town or city.

The point is more people would be killed if you have guns rampant in your university. I'm not even sure if that's a debateable point, it will kill almost guaranteed kill more people.

P.S. What the hell happened to the asking for more police officers/trained security to be present in dense areas btw?

Why not ask the university to spend more on security? Was it not at the Virginia Tech that a student so visibly and casually walked into the university? Having a light patrol is an amazing thing. Either for immediate action or quicker response times.

My university has never fell victim to crime like this, but even without such high incidence of crime our university not only has police patrolling our campus but also our own distinguished university police force.

Isn't that a more logical approach? Instead of having vigilante justice you can have physically and mentally trained individuals at the scene with much lower response times? And police generally know what they are doing so the densest areas will generally have the most security, preventing mass murder on ridiculous scale.

If the university students should be lobbying for anything it should be protection, not making circulation of weapons in the universities fifty times easier which would evidently, as in proven to be true, increase the incidence and the likelihood of people resorting to violent gun crimes.

'Nuff said.

You just made the same point you made in your first post, the point I already addressed, except you made it longer this time. No matter how you put it, putting a weapon in someone's hand does not make them a psychopath.

Plus, if you own your gun LEGALLY, you've already gone through a background check, in addition to a 3 day waiting period put in place to give people who might be contemplating something rash some time to think it over.

And no matter what law or security measures you put in place, people will find ways around them or ignore them all together. Explain to me how having more security on campus would have stopped a man from walking into a classroom with a concealed weapon. You have the right intentions, but are approaching it with the wrong solution.

[masonite]

Just because people can't legally bring a gun on campus doesn't mean they're not going to. It just simply means the good, law abiding students won't bring guns while the potentially dangerous, non-law abiding students will. Personally I'd rather the law abiding students be the ones with gun or at least have gun also to even out the crazies.


How do you define a "law abiding citizen?"

This idea that theres one group of society who NEVER does anything wrong, and another who ALWAYS does something wrong, is way off the mark, and is the reason the whole argument of "law abiding citizens wont use their gun" doesn't work.

I'll use an instance from here in Australia to illustrate my point. A copule of years ago, there was a case of a young boy (16) who stabbed both his parents to death in his home, in order to get at their inheritance. It was a shocking death, made even more shocking by the fact that he was the classic "law abiding citizen" that gun lobbyists love to talk about. No criminal history, was very good at school, was quiet, didn't misbehave, was instantly likeable to adults. Yet he managed to find the will to kill his parents, and then call the ambo's and say someone else had done it.

Now, i'm not saying that in this case guns would have or wouldn't have made any difference, im just saying that anyone has the capacity to act unrationally, and do things no-one thought they were capable of, even if they are the very definition of "law abiding citizen".

(Just out of curiosity, did the virginia tech student have recorded drug abuse? or a criminal record of violent crime?)





Now you look at a college situation - theres alcohol, drugs, pressure from study, pressure from peers, relationships - a whole lot of high stress factors, that make things even more unpredictable once guns are brought into the picture. No-one is claiming that having a gun makes people crazy, but if theres a situation that leaves a student looking for a fight, legalising guns on campus means they don't have to look for a weapon, or even use their fists...

Theres not a person here that hasn't done something they regret in the heat of the moment. With guns legalised in such a volatile situation as university, the consequences become much more serious.


And what's with the idea that one person pulling a gun would result in everyone else shooting him before he got a chance to do damage? Sorry guys, this isn't counterstrike. Hell, someone could walk into the toilets and put a bullet through every cubicle before anyone could do anything about it, they could walk through low traffic areas of a campus knocking off people one at a time before someone got wind. And even if they opened fire in a crowded situation, there'd be pandemonium. Either a) Everyone would do what we've been geneticay programmed to do in such a situation - panic. or b) much less likely (even if everyone had guns), people would try to kill him. And we'd end up with ten or twenty people firing guns in a crowded room instead of one. And that's supposed to be safer?


So why are there not rampant gun deaths at Utah unis...they permit concealed weapons?

Utah universities have only just legislated that concealed weapons can be taken on campus, and the fight to have the bans reinstated is ongoing. It's a very poor argument to use, as there simply isn't enough time to ascertain the effects of people carrying guns to school.When the first shooting does occur there, we'll so how long it takes compared to the virginia tech shootings.




Do you have data to back this up? Anecdotally, no matter how many guns I have laying around I'm no more likely to see the use of a gun as a solution to my problems. This sounds similar to the "if drugs were legal, we would all start using meth" argument, which has been shown to hold no water.

So do you believe meth should be legalised?


If a psycho student is going to bring a gun to school, he is not going to care about what the law says.

And how do you pre-emptively know what a psycho student is? is it the person who who has a known criminal history, and knows the law will come down on him like a tonne of bricks if he does something wrong, or the person who has quietly let his hatred simmer away inside him until he cant control it anymore?

My point is, you don't know whether someone is going to pull out a gun or not, and simply asking "have you been caught by the police doing something wrong?" doesn't determine whether someone has the capacity to kill. Even if you are sure you've stopped 99% of people willing to kill, once guns are legalised in uni's that leaves 1% free to go on a rampage with nothing to stop them.

Legalising guns might limit the damage each individual killer can do, but greatly increases the number of killers able to get away with it.


One shouldn't look to how to stop some nutter once he's started shooting people up; rather, one should look at how to prevent the nutter from getting started in the first place. To do this one must make sure that no one has a gun at university.
It's simple, really.

QFT. Just out of curiosity, is Virginia tech a very hard uni to get accepted into?...

And one last thing - if everyone else is carrying, why would a prospective killer even need to bring his own gun? food for thought...

[Ihsiin]

tell that to the victims and their families/friends.

Washington D.C has a ban on firearms.
Population about 600k
Here are their gun recovery statistics:

2008 - 642
2007 - 2,924
2006 - 2,655
2005 - 2,344
2004 - 2,065
2003 - 1,982

Homicides have slowly dwindled over the last 20 years, but they are still existent.
10 years ago there were 300 homicides, last year there were about 200.

This helps further prove the fact that if people want firearms and want to use them, they will.
Like many others have said, all you are doing is prohibiting law abiding citizens from defending themselves

That's a very defeatist attitude. It's like saying: "Well, if the homicidal maniacs want to go on a killing spree, they will, regardless of the law, so there's no point outlawing it," though, of course, not so extreme.
There is, of course, a difference between banning something and making sure something doesn't happen. If you simply say: "Alright, guns are banned," you can't just sit back and expect everyone to comply. You have to make sure guns are absent from university, by any (vaguely civil) means necessary.
Of course, I understand that in America guns, and other accessories of death, are already ridiculously easily available. That really can't help.

[IEatFriedPikmin]

It's not like just anyone can carry a gun. You have to have a permit to do so.

If they are strict in how they handle this, I really don't see a problem. I think most people would just feel uncomfortable going to school if this were to pass. Since guns are associated with violence, of course people will have issues with it.

I also doubt that anyone who has the slightest urge to bring a concealed weapon to school would do so...with strict permits to be a nice hurdle to legally own one, most people probably wouldn't consider getting one in the first place.

Of course this is just all my opinion... I think having tougher security is a good idea, too. My point is is that I don't think it is such a crazy idea, and is one that should be considered. It is highly debatable though.

[Sadface]

How do you define a "law abiding citizen?"

This idea that theres one group of society who NEVER does anything wrong, and another who ALWAYS does something wrong, is way off the mark, and is the reason the whole argument of "law abiding citizens wont use their gun" doesn't work.

I'll use an instance from here in Australia to illustrate my point. A copule of years ago, there was a case of a young boy (16) who stabbed both his parents to death in his home, in order to get at their inheritance. It was a shocking death, made even more shocking by the fact that he was the classic "law abiding citizen" that gun lobbyists love to talk about. No criminal history, was very good at school, was quiet, didn't misbehave, was instantly likeable to adults. Yet he managed to find the will to kill his parents, and then call the ambo's and say someone else had done it.

Now, i'm not saying that in this case guns would have or wouldn't have made any difference, im just saying that anyone has the capacity to act unrationally, and do things no-one thought they were capable of, even if they are the very definition of "law abiding citizen".

(Just out of curiosity, did the virginia tech student have recorded drug abuse? or a criminal record of violent crime?)





Now you look at a college situation - theres alcohol, drugs, pressure from study, pressure from peers, relationships - a whole lot of high stress factors, that make things even more unpredictable once guns are brought into the picture. No-one is claiming that having a gun makes people crazy, but if theres a situation that leaves a student looking for a fight, legalising guns on campus means they don't have to look for a weapon, or even use their fists...

Theres not a person here that hasn't done something they regret in the heat of the moment. With guns legalised in such a volatile situation as university, the consequences become much more serious.


And what's with the idea that one person pulling a gun would result in everyone else shooting him before he got a chance to do damage? Sorry guys, this isn't counterstrike. Hell, someone could walk into the toilets and put a bullet through every cubicle before anyone could do anything about it, they could walk through low traffic areas of a campus knocking off people one at a time before someone got wind. And even if they opened fire in a crowded situation, there'd be pandemonium. Either a) Everyone would do what we've been geneticay programmed to do in such a situation - panic. or b) much less likely (even if everyone had guns), people would try to kill him. And we'd end up with ten or twenty people firing guns in a crowded room instead of one. And that's supposed to be safer?




Utah universities have only just legislated that concealed weapons can be taken on campus, and the fight to have the bans reinstated is ongoing. It's a very poor argument to use, as there simply isn't enough time to ascertain the effects of people carrying guns to school.When the first shooting does occur there, we'll so how long it takes compared to the virginia tech shootings.






So do you believe meth should be legalised?




And how do you pre-emptively know what a psycho student is? is it the person who who has a known criminal history, and knows the law will come down on him like a tonne of bricks if he does something wrong, or the person who has quietly let his hatred simmer away inside him until he cant control it anymore?

My point is, you don't know whether someone is going to pull out a gun or not, and simply asking "have you been caught by the police doing something wrong?" doesn't determine whether someone has the capacity to kill. Even if you are sure you've stopped 99% of people willing to kill, once guns are legalised in uni's that leaves 1% free to go on a rampage with nothing to stop them.

Legalising guns might limit the damage each individual killer can do, but greatly increases the number of killers able to get away with it.




QFT. Just out of curiosity, is Virginia tech a very hard uni to get accepted into?...

And one last thing - if everyone else is carrying, why would a prospective killer even need to bring his own gun? food for thought...

You just made the same point you made in your first post, the point I already addressed, except you made it longer this time. No matter how you put it, putting a weapon in someone's hand does not make them a psychopath.

Plus, if you own your gun LEGALLY, you've already gone through a background check, in addition to a 3 day waiting period put in place to give people who might be contemplating something rash some time to think it over.

And no matter what law or security measures you put in place, people will find ways around them or ignore them all together. Explain to me how having more security on campus would have stopped a man from walking into a classroom with a concealed weapon. You have the right intentions, but are approaching it with the wrong solution.

[Sadface]

And if you ask me, I think the real issue is the state of mental healthcare today. I don't see why more of an effort isn't being made to ensure that people don't go on murderous rampages by simply making sure that people aren't fucking crazy, and if they are, getting them some help. People with mental illnesses are seen in a very negative light still, as wackos or nutjobs instead of as sick people who need help.

Anyways. You can write new laws all you want but it would be best to tackle the problem at its core...

[Gummy]

Human nature comes to mind in this thread.

I think I'll use this as one of my sources.

[JasonXe]

i wouldn't feel comfortable at a uni if they allowed students to carry guns because people will bring guns to the school. Even if there license to carry it doesn't mean i trust them to do the right thing with it. Showing off, accidentally misfire etc...I'm not going to put my life in harms way. Also students/visitors without a permit will bring it in to and what can you do about it?

In uni:
Hey, do you got a permit for that gun?

No

Ok, your under arrest.

Hell no, *shoots gun, runs away*.

[Teh Roxor!]

So do you believe meth should be legalised?


Yes, I do. If you do meth in your own home, I don't care. Go for it. It's none of my business, and I have no business asking the government to lock you up for it.

[Sadface]

Yes, I do. If you do meth in your own home, I don't care. Go for it. It's none of my business, and I have no business asking the government to lock you up for it.

qft

[IEatFriedPikmin]

i wouldn't feel comfortable at a uni if they allowed students to carry guns because people will bring guns to the school. Even if there license to carry it doesn't mean i trust them to do the right thing with it. Showing off, accidentally misfire etc...I'm not going to put my life in harms way. Also students/visitors without a permit will bring it in to and what can you do about it?

In uni:
Hey, do you got a permit for that gun?

No

Ok, your under arrest.

Hell no, *shoots gun, runs away*.

They would be concealed.

The whole issue has been brought up for safety reasons. You wouldn't be able to just randomly show it off.

[curryking1]

Alright, let's now supposes this crap is concealed.

So who's going to cough up the money to periodically check for everyone who has guns?

You realise how much more investment it costs to check for weapons and permits than it does to simply add protection and keep all guns off campus? Why not use the money to just remove guns? That completely annihilates the cost of checking and documenting permits.

1) keeping the circulation of weapons low in total by keeping guns banned
2) paying money for security who can both search for illegal weapons (it's easier to come to the conclusion and costs less money to come to the conclusion that guns are illegal and should be confiscated when all of them are banned hint hint*) and protect you

You guys are laughable. You keep running around the point that when everyone has a gun and guns circulating around so very easily it's going to also...

Increase the presence of legal guns on campus.

And also increase the presence of illegal firearms on campus.

Increase the ease of acquiring legal or illegal weapons by people unlikely or likely to use the weapon for a gun crime

And undoubtedly increase the event of 'misuse' of firearms.

You guys act like simply having a law that states 'Guns MUST BE LEGAL TO BE HELD' will be something that is completely face value and no room for backfire.

That it will somehow be followed to 100% efficacy.

Show me where gun circulation in public or even private sectors has been followed to 100% efficacy. Thanks.

Foolish, disgusting and amazing.

You just made the same point you made in your first post, the point I already addressed, except you made it longer this time. No matter how you put it, putting a weapon in someone's hand does not make them a psychopath.

Seriously, what the ***k are you talking about?

You're the one dancing around the fact that more guns on campus' will inevitably make it easier for anyone to get their hands on legal AND illegal weapons and increase the incidence of crimes with legal and illegal firearms combined.

I'll even go back to what started a main point of my second reply.

Do you have data to back this up? Anecdotally, no matter how many guns I have laying around I'm no more likely to see the use of a gun as a solution to my problems. This sounds similar to the "if drugs were legal, we would all start using meth" argument, which has been shown to hold no water.

If you want to tell me that 'differences in culture' account for more gun crimes and homicides between Toronto (which has relatively few guns) and a similarly sized American city (which on the whole certainly have far more weapons) than do 'differences in the magnitude of the circulation of weapons...'

You'd have a serious fun time trying to bring that argument up to snuff.

[Bryan]

I don't think they should be allowed to conceal their firearms. They should be carried in plain sight, so everyone knows the score.

[MaceSin]

I have some weirdass bastards in my class, so fuck that.

[Daddy Tryptamine]

Why should anybody be allowed guns? It makes no sense to me.

[=NukeBlaze=]

Let them carry guns, wait for an incident, then wait for the counter lobby for the removal.

The cycle of life and death flows unabated again, weeeeee!

[Black Dragon37]

Say "YES!" to more nigga moments!

0B9QGrpdu5Y

-_-

[Sadface]

Toronto's a great city to use as a counter-example seeing as it has just as many minorities and desperate lower class citizens as most American cities.

A lot of times I find idiots like to argue with apples and oranges comarisons, but you really pulled through this time, curryking. I think I finally see your point, and the best solution truly is to take away rights of law-abiding citizens, not to do things about healthcare or poverty.

[masonite]

You just made the same point you made in your first post, the point I already addressed, except you made it longer this time. No matter how you put it, putting a weapon in someone's hand does not make them a psychopath.

Plus, if you own your gun LEGALLY, you've already gone through a background check, in addition to a 3 day waiting period put in place to give people who might be contemplating something rash some time to think it over.

And no matter what law or security measures you put in place, people will find ways around them or ignore them all together. Explain to me how having more security on campus would have stopped a man from walking into a classroom with a concealed weapon. You have the right intentions, but are approaching it with the wrong solution.

If you think the parts of my post you bolded were saying the same thing, go back and read it again, because you obviously didn't the first time.




No matter how you put it, putting a weapon in someone's hand does not make them a psychopath.

sigh.
No-one is claiming that having a gun makes people crazy, but if theres a situation that leaves a student looking for a fight, legalising guns on campus means they don't have to look for a weapon, or even use their fists...

That sentence from my post was directly above the one you took the effort to bold, and yet you try and claim i've said that putting a gun in someone's hand makes them a psychopath?!


Plus, if you own your gun LEGALLY, you've already gone through a background check, in addition to a 3 day waiting period put in place to give people who might be contemplating something rash some time to think it over.

And what does a background check involve? recorded drug history. recorded history of violent crime. recorded history of mental illness. Did the virginia tech student have any of those?

And a 3 day cool down period doesn't help. So someone buys a gun, three days later they get it...what stops them from doing something rash then? the fact that the law acknowledges theres a risk for guns to be used impulsively doesn't ring any warning bells? Besides, undiagnosed mental illness doesn't heal itself in three days...


And no matter what law or security measures you put in place, people will find ways around them or ignore them all together. Explain to me how having more security on campus would have stopped a man from walking into a classroom with a concealed weapon.

If everyone can carry a gun, anyone with an undiagnosed mental illness can carry a gun on campus. anyone with an axe to grind can carry one on campus. The argument that other people can shoot a possible killer is a well worn one, but like communism, its flawed in practice. One gun being fired in a classroom is dangerous, 100 guns being fired in a panic is a lot worse. The idea that anyone with a gun will be able to shoot a killer on a large campus is a pipe dream. the virginia tech shooter could go back to a campus with many students carrying guns, and kill just as many people - with a few more dead from the crossfire.

I never said increased security was a solution, although now that you mention it, that would work a lot better than students carrying guns. Security is a preventative measure - it can stop shootings happening. Students carrying concealed weapons doesn't stop anything from happening - its reactionary. It's only useful once people are dead. It doesn't solve anything.

In some schools in the US and possibly here in australia there are metal detectors to get into school grounds. It's a more extreme measure, and requires a reduction in the number of entrances and exits, but it works, and requires a minimum of security staff. Or how about giving each lecturer a weapon and appropriate gun training, so that drunks arent running around with loaded weapons? It's not hard to come up with a solution that works better than giving everyone a gun and saying go for it.


And if you ask me, I think the real issue is the state of mental healthcare today. I don't see why more of an effort isn't being made to ensure that people don't go on murderous rampages by simply making sure that people aren't fucking crazy, and if they are, getting them some help. People with mental illnesses are seen in a very negative light still, as wackos or nutjobs instead of as sick people who need help.

Anyways. You can write new laws all you want but it would be best to tackle the problem at its core...

By making sure people aren't crazy? once again, this isn't some fantasy world where everything is black any white. Diagnosis of mental illness isn't something thats easy to do, not least of all because it requires the person with the illness to come forward (unless they're exhibing extremely obvious symptoms, which is uncommon). it is impossible to prevent every person with a mental illness from being in posession of a gun - people don't have their illnesses tattooed on their forehead and even if massive amounts were spent on awareness, it doesn't automatically diagnose everyone. Also, you don't have to have a mental illness to go on a rampage. I'm sure there are many recorded instances of shootings in the US as a result of being teased, or due to being dumped, or fighting getting out of hand. The number of situations where guns can be pulled is huge, and many of those occur every day on a university campus.

In the case of university shootings, the problem is people bringing guns to university. As the law stands, thats the problem. and as you said yourself sadface, changing the laws doesn't solve the problem.

[Sadface]

People with mental illnesses wouldn't be afraid to seek help if the attitude about it was changed, as I mentioned earlier. And someone doesn't have to have a mental illness to be mentally unhealthy, just as you don't have to have the flu to scrape your knee.

[TheGreenElf]

Completely. Fucking. Stupid.

[masonite]

People with mental illnesses wouldn't be afraid to seek help if the attitude about it was changed, as I mentioned earlier. And someone doesn't have to have a mental illness to be mentally unhealthy, just as you don't have to have the flu to scrape your knee.

Regardless of other people's attitude, no-one wants to hear that they've got a mental illness. It's the individual acceptance that is the problem, rather than the communities attitude. No different to people being afraid to find out they have any other life-changing disease.
Mentally unhealthy sounds even more ambiguous and hard to diagnose than mental illness, and further reinforces my point that giving guns to anyone at uni that passes a background test is a recipe for trouble.

[Coded-Dude]

so i guess we should just put up electric fences, razor wire, and metal detectors around every campus in the US and make students take their shoes and coats off(empty their pockets, purses, and backpacks) and "randomly" search people that security deems "suspicous" to allow admission onto campus.

[masonite]

so i guess we should just put up electric fences, razor wire, and metal detectors around every campus in the US and make students take their shoes and coats off(empty their pockets, purses, and backpacks) and "randomly" search people that security deems "suspicous" to allow admission onto campus.

Don't be facetious.

My comment about metal detectors was a mere suggestion, as its been done in schools before. The point is that there are many even slightly far-fetched suggestions that are closer to an intelligent solution than allowing anyone and everyone to take a loaded weapon into a classroom.

If you think anyone believes razor wire or even electric fences are a viable solution so far in this discussion, you obviously haven't grasped any of the points being put forward.

[Coded-Dude]

Well, my comment was not towards you or your comments directly. I have heard so many say that arming students is a dumb solution, why not just get rid of all guns on campus....

I have yet to hear of a viable solution to keep guns off campus(other than making new laws that "say" its still illegal).

[masonite]

my point is that arming students isn't the answer. the way things stand at the moment is better than arming everyone, its not hard to see that. how about a proactive attitude to mental health within universities? promote the use of councillors, subsidise a kind of student healthcare system within the uni? Promote the message of guns being the coward's way of dealing with problems. tougher penalties for having prohibited weapons at uni. promotion of a "mateship" (or US equivalent) mentality - if a friend is expressing symptoms of mental illness, stand with them and help them, rather than ignoring it. uni campus security (even here in australia we have security for each uni campus). Even if none of there are considered viable solutions, they are at least a step in the right direction, and will leave unis in a far better state than giving people guns and letting everyone sort it out for themselves. Most importantly though, this mentality of guns=safety needs to change. If you've got a gun, all it means is someone has more of an excuse to use a gun on you.

[Coded-Dude]

All those things will not ensure that another VT won't happen.

Arming students will not either, but it has the potential to drastically decrease the number of victims. I think the biggest argument is how to prevent the most loss of life. Sure we could go round and round about which one is more civil, peaceful, cheap, etc. But the bottom line remains: how to prevent such massacres(which is impossible); so the next logical question is how to minimize casualties. Until an even like the recent college shootings is defused by an armed student all we have are theories and baseless facts(on all the pros/cons). Could it potentially be a reason for an unnecessary shooting...? Absolutely, but we are getting into the debate of: what is life worth, and that will never be resolved. Of course we could do like aviation and just put an armed LEO(law enforcement officer) in every class room, but is a trained certified student any less protection?

Do I think it should be legal - yes.
Do I also think students should declare their ccw to the school and be forced to take training/safety course throughout their college career - yes.
Do I think there should be swift and harsh punishment for violating such a right - you bet your ass.

I've already said it once, but i'll put it a bit differently.

We are given rights, but those rights have the burden of responsibility. If you chose to practice a given right(like ccw's at school) then you should also be prepared for the consequences of going above and beyond those rights for personal interests. A psychopath isn't concerned with his/her right to carry a concealed weapon at school. If they want to shoot one up, they'll figure out how(irregardless of the consequences). A student going to school to further benefit their life/lively-hood would not risk failure, suspension, prison time, and all related fines to brandishing or illegally handling a firearm at said school.

We are not talking about putting a gun in the hand of every fucking idiot that enrolls. You must first legally obtain a firearm and go through the necessary "hoops" to obtain the CCW. Then you must also meet the schools criteria to be allowed to carry said firearm on campus.

I think the biggest con would not be an isolated incident of two egomaniacs having a shootout over something trivial(like money, women, drugs, etc. - as that happens already), but the possibility of an armed student missing a potential threat and hitting an innocent bystander.

[masonite]

but having guns for students won't ensure it doesn't happen either. Theres no guarantee that having guns will lead to LESS deaths - theres the potential for MORE individual incidents, as well as (as you've pointed out) the innocent bystanders caught in a class of people firing at someone from all angles.

Having lots of students packing heat doesn't defuse any situation - if anything it becomes inflamed. If someone begins acting erratically, what then? shoot him just in case he's carrying a concealed weapon? in any situation, once guns are known to be present, things can escalate very quickly. Once people are allowed to take the law into their own hands, theres no black and white - all it takes is someone to panic and overreact and theres another innocent person being shot. And then what? the person with the gun seems crazy. They could be in league with the attacker. What then? well, in a class half full of loaded guns, i can pretty well predict what will happen next.

For argument's sake, we'll look at the VT shooting. If guns were allowed on campus, the killer would still be carrying a gun. he'd still be shooting people, and there'd be panic. once the shooter is shot dead by a student, and a few more are taken out by panicking students, there's still chaos. A campus is a big place. half the campus still only knows theres a guy shooting people on the grounds. Someone sees the "hero" standing over a dead body with a gun in his hand. bang. another casualty. the cycle can be repeated many times, the problem is a combination of: trigger happy gun nuts, who are looking for something to kill, people obsessed with security, who shoot first and ask questions later, and panicky types, who shoot wildly. Theres also the crowd mentality, which isn't changed simply by adding guns into the equation. Now i'm not saying this is exactly what would have happened - no-one can predict that. But i'm willing to bet that the response would not have been a simple tit-for-tat, everyone back to work type of scenario people are hoping for.


There's no way gun carrying can be restricted based on personality. restricting based on mental illness is just as hard. The hoops necessary to get a gun don't seem to be that difficult - most people with a mental illness don't even have any record of it, as its so difficult to diagnose, and simply banning everyone with a mental illness is wrong too, as theres different severities and types of mental illness that have no effect on propensity for violence - hell, even not talking much can be considered a mental illness. It's inevitable that people will slip through that net (unless guns are banned, which will drastically reduce the chance of that happening) and the VT killer didn't have a criminal conviction, (as most uni students don't, even if they have personal problems they're too young at that age to really have done too much) which throws that "hoop" out the window.



Mandatory training doesn't solve the problem of a class of people firing weapons. It's also the most expensive route to take. Plus, it doesn't guarantee that people will use their guns properly in such a situation, or handle the gun safely. If laws don't stop people from doing the wrong thing on purpose, why would a bit of training? And what if a "good student" has episodes of depression whilst at uni? what if someone cracks under the pressure? is forced to repeat a year due to poor grades and doesn't want to? You're separating prospective killers into "psychopaths" and "good students" - not so dissimilar to the "law abiding citizen" used by the NRA. Unfortunately such a clear cut separation simply does not exist.

Also, a student doesn't have the responsibility to shoot someone. To even say they should puts an unbelieveable amount of pressure on someone who may not even have the mental capacity to deal with such a situation. And on the other hand, just because they've got a gun for protection doesn't mean they'll be willing to use it, but that doesn't stop that gun from working, or being present in a situation where someone else wants it. Even a law enforcement officer would be a safer bet, as they've undergone full training not only to carry a gun, but also to deal with a situation where they might have to use it (which is simply not feasible to do for every student eligible to carry a concealed weapon - the training would go on longer than the degree).


Next, theres the issue of gun security. If guns are legal, there are going to be hundreds, perhaps thousands of guns on campus at any one time. Why would a psychopath even need to buy a gun? Also, if a fight breaks out, whats the first thing people will go for? Fighting over money, drugs, women, etc might be trivial, but that doesn't make them rare. In the heat of the moment people act irrationally, particulatly if drugs are involved (particularly things like meth, speed, coke) and besides - you said it happens already - why would it happen less often with more guns present? if the other person could be packing, why let them shoot you first? and if they start shooting, we've got the panic situation again, with people looking for someone to kill in amongst the chaos.

Students won't have their gun on them all the time, either - people take showers, they live in dormitories, and there are classes which, regardless of gun laws, won't allow guns anywhere near them - science labs for instance, or anywhere there's flammable material. Even if the killer was dealt with fairly quickly (with, as you pointed out, the shooting of a few innocent bystanders) their incidence would increase many fold over current shootings.

Also, what if there are two shooters? all you need is one to create the chaos, whilst the other one starts shooting a few moments later. There are literally limitless scenarios where someone can get a gun and start shooting once guns are legal on uni campus', compared to the single scenario we've seen so far with illegal guns. The possibility of anyone being armed could result in more drastic measures being made by prospective killers - if you know everyone could shoot you, wouldn't you be more thorough when shooting? plan things out a bit more? go for low traffic areas? or strike at times where panic would be maximised? get accomplices to cash in on the chaos created? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The idea that more guns will decrease the violence is a sadly mistaken one. It's a reactionary move that does nothing to address the problem in the first place, and thus the problem will still exist.

Simpy dismissing the prevention of massacres as "impossible" is a poor way to go about it - why should it be impossible? in australia the most recent one was in a tasmanian historic site, over 15 years ago. I don't think theres ever been one in a uni here. Many countries have never seen a massacre before, full stop. America has seen very few university massacres compared to massacres in general areas where guns are legal, shouldn't that ring any alarm bells?

Lastly, it doesn't take a psychopath to go on a massacre. Even the VT shooter couldn't be described as a psychopath before he started shooting. Sure, he had social problems, and was a bit of an outcast, but if he walked into your gun shop you couldn't say "uh oh, here comes a killer". This is the biggest issue with having guns at uni. Words like "thorough" and "fool-proof" and "rigorous" can be thrown around like candy when describing regulation for people having guns, but they're just comforting words, nothing more. They're thrown in at the end of news stories to make people feel safer.

The bottom line is, theres no clear cut definition of someone who is going to go on a massacre, no "law abiding citizen" who does everything right and is impervious to social influences, human error, genetic tendencies or human emotion. How about prevention of the environment that causes such terrible behaviour? bullying would be a big one, its an issue whch seems to recur with evert massacre headline, yet is never addressed. Why?

[edit] hmmm....didnt realise it was going to be that long....

[Sadface]

Regardless of other people's attitude, no-one wants to hear that they've got a mental illness. It's the individual acceptance that is the problem, rather than the communities attitude. No different to people being afraid to find out they have any other life-changing disease.
Mentally unhealthy sounds even more ambiguous and hard to diagnose than mental illness, and further reinforces my point that giving guns to anyone at uni that passes a background test is a recipe for trouble.

First off, don't generalize, I've got antisocial disorder and have been sent to a nuthouse in the past, and openly admit to it.

Second, The reasoning behind not wanting to admit you're not healthy is completely different from not wanting to admit you're dying.

On one hand, you've got to confront your mortality. On the other hand, you don't want other people to think you're some sort of nutter. The individual denial stems from the community's negative attitude. When I say the words "psychopath" and "sociopath" what do you think of? Most likely people who have killed other people. But if you look at the definitions of the words, or just the words themselves with no connotations attached (socio-path), you'll notice that they simply refer to people with certain disorders of the mind. I'm a sociopath, and I don't even have a criminal record.*

People don't want to admit they're crazy for reasons more similar to people not admitting they have diarrhea than people not admitting they have AIDS. But if the "Oh god!!! Am I crazy?!? OH NOOOO" attitude was replaced with a "I'm not well and need help" attitude...

*edit: I know that's a nice juicy little tidbit that you probably want to bring up and argue the background check with. But I'm a sociopath who has sought help, and because I understand my disorder, I doubt I'd ever buy a gun to begin with (and this doesn't mean I think my friends who own guns shouldn't own them. They're not crazy :p) Ideally, all sociopaths would seek help. But that's what I've been arguing.

[masonite]

First off, don't generalize, I've got antisocial disorder and have been sent to a nuthouse in the past, and openly admit to it.

Second, The reasoning behind not wanting to admit you're not healthy is completely different from not wanting to admit you're dying.

On one hand, you've got to confront your mortality. On the other hand, you don't want other people to think you're some sort of nutter. The individual denial stems from the community's negative attitude. When I say the words "psychopath" and "sociopath" what do you think of? Most likely people who have killed other people. But if you look at the definitions of the words, or just the words themselves with no connotations attached (socio-path), you'll notice that they simply refer to people with certain disorders of the mind. I'm a sociopath, and I don't even have a criminal record.*

People don't want to admit they're crazy for reasons more similar to people not admitting they have diarrhea than people not admitting they have AIDS. But if the "Oh god!!! Am I crazy?!? OH NOOOO" attitude was replaced with a "I'm not well and need help" attitude...

*edit: I know that's a nice juicy little tidbit that you probably want to bring up and argue the background check with. But I'm a sociopath who has sought help, and because I understand my disorder, I doubt I'd ever buy a gun to begin with (and this doesn't mean I think my friends who own guns shouldn't own them. They're not crazy :p) Ideally, all sociopaths would seek help. But that's what I've been arguing.


Actually, i was paying more atention to the first part of your post. I never made the comparison to other life threatening diseases, only life changing diseases. I'm not sure about the US, but here in australia mental illness is classified as a disease these days - ie something that can be healed, or at least have the symptoms dealt with by outside help or medication (although medication these days tends to be a last resort rather than the cure-all of decades past).

Considering current attitudes, its good that you're able to acknowledge and seek help for the issue, but the term psychopath as it is used today has very little similarity to the dictionary definition. I'm not saying the dictionary is wrong (that'd be pretty idiotic) but that what people try to convey when using the term psychopath is inappropriate for the term. I'm also not disagreeing with you regarding social attitudes towards mental illness - they have to change for the better, but if social attitudes reach a point where everyone with a mental illness can get help, and does get help, the argument for guns at uni falls apart. In the meantime, where many people with mental illness don't get help (for any reason) the idea of having guns at uni throws up too many risks, and many more risks than the one we're trying to prevent.

[curryking1]

A lot of times I find idiots like to argue with apples and oranges comarisons, but you really pulled through this time, curryking. I think I finally see your point, and the best solution truly is to take away rights of law-abiding citizens, not to do things about healthcare or poverty.

Are you stupid or just trying to be difficult?

I support the most proactive solutions to fighting crime such as getting children exposed to police at an early age to make bonds with them and other social action plans such as allowing kids into after school programs for sports or anything that will keep their interest.

And yes, Toronto is one of the best examples of how low gun crime is induced by lower gun circulation, although there is lower rate of poverty and unemployment generally.

HOWEVER YOU CANNOT ATTRIBUTE ALL GUN VIOLENCE DIFFERENCE TO ONLY RATES OF POVERTY OR HEALTHCARE OR FINANCIAL REASONS.

BOTH FACTORS REDUCED will reduce urban violence. Don't just blame one, fool.

It is also even true that people who want to kill people will find different ways. HOWEVER guns as yet another option to kill people only adds to the possibility a person may turn to violence, let alone that guns are sensationalized and popularized to an absurd degree as urban lifestyles for the wannage trigger happy wankster.

You are still trying to argue that having lots of guns does not affect gun crime AT ALL. You can't argue that. There is not a single situation where there are guns and no poverty to study and you may not make that silly claim.

[woundingchaney]

I have spent my life around firearms and have a devoted respect for them. Though I dont feel that the average university student shares my concept of firearms.

Ultimately I would not allow students to carry firearms at a university.

[Smokey]

These Americans are crazy...

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/cairn/obelix.gif

Come on, isn't obvious that no one should be allowed to bring guns to a university, be they crazy or otherwise? One shouldn't look to how to stop some nutter once he's started shooting people up; rather, one should look at how to prevent the nutter from getting started in the first place. To do this one must make sure that no one has a gun at university.
It's simple, really.

[jaxmkii]

having everybody armed is known as "Mutualy assured distuction"

the idea is if you shoot me ill shoot you we both die.

its the reason why WWIII never happend and it works on small scales too.

So in Britain and Scotland, two societies with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, where you’ll get arrested for simply thinking about a gun… knife violence is supposedly out of control. What next, ban all knives?

What’s sad is that socialists always seem to miss the simple fact that the weapon is simply a tool. It doesn’t leap off the table by itself and shoot someone, or jump up by itself and stab someone… ten times… it takes an actually human being behind that weapon to do the damage. Take away the gun, the criminal takes care of business with the knife. Ban knives, and it will be baseball bats… if someone is intent on doing harm, or committing a crime, you need the weapon in the hand of the innocent victim in order to stop the criminal.

reminds me of an old episode of Archie Bunker… remember that show? Meat-head and his wife were going on with the same Jesse Jackson-like lib rant against guns, and she says something like, “There were 30,000 people killed by guns last year!”. To which Archie replies, “Would it make you feel any better if they were all pushed out windows?!”