Why I don't carry a gun!

[Kommodore]

I see no reason why an adult should not be allowed to carry a weapon on school campus. Chaos like that which Bambi described would not happen, because frankly few people are actually going to carry weapons on them. And while the likelihood of a confusing shootout happening in a large open and sparsely populated area are relative high, it is less so in a more cramped situation, where more casualties from a lone gunman are more likely to account.

This isn't an issue of law and order as I see it, a college student is an adult, so adults are either competent enough to carry weapons or they are not, and I say they are.

 

[Kommodore]

Goddammit double post

 

[vivatheshadows]

I see no reason why an adult should not be allowed to carry a weapon on school campus. Chaos like that which Bambi described would not happen, because frankly few people are actually going to carry weapons on them. And while the likelihood of a confusing shootout happening in a large open and sparsely populated area are relative high, it is less so in a more cramped situation, where more casualties from a lone gunman are more likely to account.

This isn't an issue of law and order as I see it, a college student is an adult, so adults are either competent enough to carry weapons or they are not, and I say they are.

Well the one problem i see with your argument (though it is a valid one) is that you can hope that someone will do the right thing if allowed to carry a gun to school. But the fact of the matter is the uncertainty involved in it all. Someone may be the most cool headed person that you know but if they were to get into a fight or something they will most likely lose their temper and blow the other guy away. Although a counter point to my argument is that if there happened to be such an incident another student may see it and pull 'their gat out you' (sorry couldnt resist) and shot that person in the act of protection, but still there is just too much uncertainty (in my mind) for such an idea that it should not be entertained.

 

[Kommodore]

That is very true, people can be hot headed, and being hot headed or irrational with a gun is not a good thing, and you can never count on people to act rationally. At least not when considering law, I don't think.

But for it boils down more to the question of is it okay to carry a gun or not. Since I think it is, I don't see the point in restricting its use for some people (and I am talking about regular citizens here, not the insane or felons, that just complicates the matter) and not for others. Why should a law-abiding adult be denied the ability to carry a weapon on campus by the government? I don't think they should be. If the school doesn't want you to, that's different, and private school should have that choice, but it should not be a law.

And as an aside, for gun laws, you cannot compare two different countries. At all. Culture, geographic isolation, poverty, current weapons availability ect. all play into a countries gun crime. So saying "because country X did this gun crimes went down, so it will work in country Y" is not valid.

 

[Irreverent]

Well, here's the problem: we won't know the odds of something bad happening until we actually allow students to carry firearms on campus. On the other hand, both sides appear to using "what if's" -- I' am of the position that firearms should be carried only by Law Enforcement officials, not by young, stupid students who might abuse their rights just to do something incredibley naive or fatal.

So screen them. We don't let everyone drive a car, and we certainly don't allow just anyone to fly an airplane, or operate in a hospital. It should be possible to build a discipline that screens and passes motivated individuals while not impacting non-motivated individuals. Might not fly in the US, but its a tenet of the "CanadaCarry" organization up here.

However, this does not mean I'd be willing to hear the position from you that an armed student body would be a protected one. I seem to recall that there was a school shooting stopped by someone who was armed ... do you remember the name of the event? If I could, I love to bring it up as of this point.

Not off hand, but its late and i've had a rough day. Let me dig.

And you've uncovered the one flaw in my argument......successful use of firearms may be under-reported simply because its a non-event (bad guy held at bay until police arrive, everyone lives) or a singular event (bad guy dispatched, "billions saved", nothing to see folks move along) and not newsworthy.

My concern isn't about the firearms themselves, but the people who might be behind them. I'd almost prefer not to take any chances with students carrying weapons on campus, but I'd be open to see the results.

And maybe the compromise is you don't enable students, you enable the admin and support staff.

What I suppose is more acceptable is law and order.

Of course. But extra police patrols, campus beat cops etc cost money....and the school always needs x^n priorities first. Socially, (at least in the Canadian context) one of the cheapest forms of gun control is to simply deny offenders bail. Based on the statistical reality that 2/3rds of shootings are committed by people already awaiting trial on bail. Doesn't eliminated the first time offenders, but its a start. Of course this approach also raises a host of other legal issues that still have to be teethed through.

I saw a demonstration that involved someone being armed stopping a school shooter, and I was impressed. Suppose you could motivate students to actually treat the campus atmosphere seriously, than I'd might slide a little bit from my current position.

I've seen a demonstration video on what un-armed students can do to improvise (basically an en-mass attack....some die, but not all) defenses in barricade situations. It was enlightening. I've also attended executive protection/defense courses for frequent flyers (all the rage in late 2001) and I can tell you, its changed the way I look at things when boarding a commercial aircraft.

 

[vivatheshadows]

That is very true, people can be hot headed, and being hot headed or irrational with a gun is not a good thing, and you can never count on people to act rationally. At least not when considering law, I don't think.

But for it boils down more to the question of is it okay to carry a gun or not. Since I think it is, I don't see the point in restricting its use for some people (and I am talking about regular citizens here, not the insane or felons, that just complicates the matter) and not for others. Why should a law-abiding adult be denied the ability to carry a weapon on campus by the government? I don't think they should be. If the school doesn't want you to, that's different, and private school should have that choice, but it should not be a law.

And as an aside, for gun laws, you cannot compare two different countries. At all. Culture, geographic isolation, poverty, current weapons availability ect. all play into a countries gun crime. So saying "because country X did this gun crimes went down, so it will work in country Y" is not valid.

Well yes that is true that people shouldnt be denied the second amendment's right to bear arms. But on a school campus may be a bit much because (again) i have to cite the uncertainty of it all. because even if someone were a law abiding upright citizen that could easily change in an instant *snaps fingers for dramatic effect* because even the most upright and moral citizens can be tipped over the edge. I feel that there is a time and place for everything, such as having a weapon in your home to protect against an intruder that is something i believe in whole hearted but a school is supposed to be a bastion of knowledge and security for its student. I think the whole school shooting thing could be put to a minimum if there were a cache on school grounds for the officers that patrol there to use as well as them being familiar with the school they potrol.

Also the whole Country v. Country in Gun Safety and Crime Prevention thing is stupid because like you said one thing may work great for one country but increase the crime rate in another.

 

[Kommodore]

Again, this isn't a high school campus filled with minors, it is a college filled with adults. Young adults, but adults nonetheless. There is uncertainty in every situation, period. If you, like me, think adults should be allowed to carry weapons in public, then it does not matter if it is on a campus or not, its all relative.

Besides, why shouldn't I be able ta buta' cap in sum bitches ass fo lookin me up? *ahemcughsputtercough* ?

 

[vivatheshadows]

Again, this isn't a high school campus filled with minors, it is a college filled with adults. Young adults, but adults nonetheless. There is uncertainty in every situation, period. If you, like me, think adults should be allowed to carry weapons in public, then it does not matter if it is on a campus or not, its all relative.

Besides, why shouldn't I be able ta buta' cap in sum bitches ass fo lookin me up? *ahemcughsputtercough* ?

Now i never said anything about carrying a weapon out in public. But i just dont see the logic in letting college students carry weapons, sure they may technically be adults but once you turn twenty one you dont gain this all knowing and infinite wisdom of the universe you are still illogical and irrational everyone is, it doesnt matter what age they are. Though granted they are less illogical than say a High school student but i think it'd be too much of a risk. To me it seems that in Theory it may be a good idea but in practice it wouldnt because, you are trying to appeal to a persons higher sense of judgement that sometimes isnt really there in the heat of the moment. Though it may be alright if looking at it from a defensive side there is always someone who will use a weapon offensivly it doesnt really matter what age.

An' nigga' you cant be goin' 'round wavin' yo' gat up in er'rybodies face 'sup wit 'dat shit you tryin' ta get shot o sum shit?

 

[Mayfurr]

And as an aside, for gun laws, you cannot compare two different countries. At all. Culture, geographic isolation, poverty, current weapons availability ect. all play into a countries gun crime. So saying "because country X did this gun crimes went down, so it will work in country Y" is not valid.

On the other hand, school shootings are practically a US-only phenomenon (yes, there was that one in Finland last year). How is it that US students seem to shoot each other up on a depressingly regular basis, while students elsewhere in the developed world almost never do so?

If it's not the ready legal availability of firearms to the socially inept, disgruntled and/or disaffected, what is the reason?

 

[vivatheshadows]

On the other hand, school shootings are practically a US-only phenomenon (yes, there was that one in Finland last year). How is it that US students seem to shoot each other up on a depressingly regular basis, while students elsewhere in the developed world almost never do so?

If it's not the ready legal availability of firearms to the socially inept, disgruntled and/or disaffected, what is the reason?

The people that buy the weapons arent socially inept, disgruntled or disaffected its their kids that are, and usually the parents dont know it until its too late. Kids in the U.S. take shit WAY to seriously someone says that another person is gay then there is an excuse to shoot someone. It is also the blatant violence that we are all expsed to from the media. most shows on an American channel are usually "Worlds [Blankiest] [Blank]" i dont think that it is a problem specifically pertaining to the weapons themselves but the culture we in the U.S. are exposed to.

 

[Irreverent]

If it's not the ready legal availability of firearms to the socially inept, disgruntled and/or disaffected, what is the reason?

Remembering that correlation does not mean causation, here's a couple of somewhat sweeping generalizations that might explain this correlation:

1. There are several Cities in the US with populations larger than some European countries, and

2. There are States in the US that are generally bigger than average European country​

So so on a per capita basis, US school-shootings may not be disproportionate to population size. Hell, the states of New York and California individually contain larger populations than all of Canada.

3. European countries tend to be truly Socialist (as is Canada), with cradle-to-grave health care, free K-12 education, plus heavily subsidized social programs, welfare and subsidized post secondary programs.​

The US generally lacks the level of investment in social programs that may (and the jury is still out on this one) nip anti-social behavior in the bud. With Europe's liberalized drug and alcohol laws, you'd expect an increase in impaired driving deaths and there isn't one. Ready access to something doesn't always imply an increase in [insert negative thing here] deaths.

Finally, it needs to be remembered that the guns used in the Columbine school shooting were secondary to the perpetrators plan. Their original plan was to detonate a 20lb propane cylinder in the fashion of a "fuel air bomb." Had it been successful, the entire school would have been vaporized, and the death toll of students, media and first-responders would have been around 4,500. If that had happend, would be be talking about baning BBQ's right now?

 

[lilEmber]

The difference between could of and did are completely different.

Guns could of never been invented, but they do so we go by actual figures.

In the United States of America 16,929 murders were committed in 2007; that's 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.

To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
Canada 2007 murder rates were 1.85 murders per 100,000 people, 605 total that year; 30% was with firearms.

With those figures we could easily say that if the USA has more gun restriction they would have a lot less murders with firearms, and more than likely a lot less murders in general; if we were to implement that now though it would be worse because they all have this mindset. It's like giving a kid candy then taking it away from him, he will cry; don't give the kid candy anyway and he won't have anything to cry about.

 

[Irreverent]

In the United States of America 16,929 murders were committed in 2007; that's 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.

To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
Canada 2007 murder rates were 1.85 murders per 100,000 people, 605 total that year; 30% was with firearms.

With those figures we could easily say that if the USA has more gun restriction they would have a lot less murders with firearms,

Again, correlation does not mean causation. Your numbers in both cases disregard the fact that gun deaths (and I suspect your stats include accidents and suicides) in the US are trending down, primarily due to an aging population. While at the same time, gun laws in the US are being liberalized (more concealed carry, "shall issue" states etc). Easier access to firearms and fewer deaths? Who knew?

Sadly, despite tight restrictions on handguns since 1937, (and re-registering the lot of them in 1993 at a price of $6B CDN) gun deaths in Canada are in the increase, even though overall crime is trending down. The conditions in Toronto and Vancouver to-day certainly can't be explained as outliers in the data. Similar trends in the UK, Japan and Australia are also well documented.

So the oddity is that, while unrestricted access to firearms may not necessarily mean an increase in gun deaths, restricted access to firearms almost always does.

 

[lilEmber]

No, murders only; that's what I said, murder.

 

[hillbilly guy]

The difference between could of and did are completely different.

Guns could of never been invented, but they do so we go by actual figures.

In the United States of America 16,929 murders were committed in 2007; that's 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.

To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
Canada 2007 murder rates were 1.85 murders per 100,000 people, 605 total that year; 30% was with firearms.

With those figures we could easily say that if the USA has more gun restriction they would have a lot less murders with firearms, and more than likely a lot less murders in general; if we were to implement that now though it would be worse because they all have this mindset. It's like giving a kid candy then taking it away from him, he will cry; don't give the kid candy anyway and he won't have anything to cry about.

i would bet at least %60 of that %70 of murders with a firearm are not with guns peaple got from a gun store you got to remember thare are alot of guns that are sold underground, why should that deal with the peaple that follow the law and got thir guns on the right side of the law. so gun restriction wont matter if you want to kill someone you shur can find alot of way to get a gun and thats eaven if you use a gun

 

[lilEmber]

i would bet at least %60 of that %70 of murders with a firearm are not with guns peaple got from a gun store you got to remember thare are alot of guns that are sold underground, why should that deal with the peaple that follow the law and got thir guns on the right side of the law

Woah, woah, woah; we're dealing with nations on a very, very large boarder; you're saying all of the guns are from underground, none from a gun store? Are you stupid?

 

[hillbilly guy]

Woah, woah, woah; we're dealing with nations on a very, very large boarder; you're saying all of the guns are from underground, none from a gun store? Are you stupid?

no no no
im just saying that alot of guns used in murders are ileagal anyway any one with any scence wouldnt use thir gun to kill someone thay can trace it back to you way to easy. if thay want some one dead thay go get a gun thay can shoot a toss
yea some guns are took from a store im not saying thay aint just that a lot of gun are never purchased at a gun store, but from some guys basement
yes alot of guns are from stores all but one of mine are (i made one) but guns used for a crime mostlikely aint

 

[Takun]

If I was you, I'd spend all that time used on guns to learn proper English.

 

[hillbilly guy]

If I was you, I'd spend all that time used on guns to learn proper English.

foR ta main piece i don"t Give an craP most peeple Get the Point:

and i dont spend alot of time on guns i spend maby a box of shells a year so shove off it aint like im writeing a letter to the president

 

[Mayfurr]

foR ta main piece i don"t Give an craP most peeple Get the Point:

[...] so shove off it aint like im writeing a letter to the president

Ah, the last refuge of the "illiterate and proud of it" brigade...

 

[Takun]

foR ta main piece i don"t Give an craP most peeple Get the Point:

and i dont spend alot of time on guns i spend maby a box of shells a year so shove off it aint like im writeing a letter to the president

That's fine. Hope you enjoy no one taking you seriously online. Ever.

 

[Roose Hurro]

The difference between could of and did are completely different.

Guns could of never been invented, but they do so we go by actual figures.

In the United States of America 16,929 murders were committed in 2007; that's 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, 70% of that were firearms.

To give a comparison to those figures I always use Canada, because we're so close and have gun restrictions but the same sort of mind-set people.
Canada 2007 murder rates were 1.85 murders per 100,000 people, 605 total that year; 30% was with firearms.

With those figures we could easily say that if the USA has more gun restriction they would have a lot less murders with firearms, and more than likely a lot less murders in general; if we were to implement that now though it would be worse because they all have this mindset. It's like giving a kid candy then taking it away from him, he will cry; don't give the kid candy anyway and he won't have anything to cry about.

I did the math, and with the figures you provided (16,929 - 5.6 - 100,000), I came up with a total US population in 2007 of 302,303,571.428... but I Googled and came up with 305,186,613 for mid-2005. So, somewhere, either I made a mistake in my calculations, or your figures for 2007 are bogus. Please provide links to confirm your claim... thank you.

Oh, by the way, according to your figures, the total population of Canada in 2007 would be 32,702,702.7027...

Oh, and another thing... those percentages also need to be confirmed. Thank you, Newf...

No, murders only; that's what I said, murder.

But you're forgetting something important, Newf... those murder figures include criminals murdering criminals. You know, gang violence? If you could find the figures for gang and crime related murders, and separate them from the "normal" murders, then what?

 

[Aquin]

I might get a gun license, I'm a rather small guy irl and it would be good to have in a city with high crime rates.

Of course, something i learned in personal defense, there is a equal level of threat to consider. I'll only carry a gun when i know how to defend myself well enough in court encase something like that should happen.

 

[coolkidex]

Good for you?

 

[Eerie Silverfox]

*rolls eyes* Oh for god's sake.

Okay, fine, enjoy that penis extension.

That's really all I can see a gun as.

... Uh, do you have a problem with penises?