More Guns on Campus?

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: txgolfer51 @ 02/18/2008 6:48:12 PM

    NIU campus security revamped their procedures after the VA Tech shootings. Yet, they still were not able to respond in time. Unfortunately, the NIU shootings are just another example of gun free zones that allow a shooter a target rich environment as resistence is non-existent.

  • Posted By: Oldshooter @ 02/18/2008 4:30:42 PM

    I think it is a bit disingenuous to keep focusing on the question of how allowing concealed carry licensees to carry on campus will make things safer, overall. It would probably make things safer by making nut cases choose somewhere else to go out in their "blaze of glory," but that's not the point. at all If overall campus safety was not increased at all by such a policy, it would still be a good idea. If someone has a Concealed Handgun License (CHL), it implies that they have taken steps to enable themselves to defend THEMSELVES more effectively. Anyone else on campus who may also benefit from the CHL holder carrying on campus is just an added benefit. The point is that policies that forbid it, deprive the CHL holder from defending him/herself! What rationale does anyone have for that? The one that seems to be proposed most often is that the safety of others will suffer from the presence of more guns on campus. Yet there is NO evidence for this. In fact ALL the evidence available, and there is a lot, suggests the opposite. If it were dangerous to have students keeping or carrying their guns on campus, why was there not a major problem with it before the 1970s when these laws started? There is no evidence that there would be drunken or rage-related shootouts, and all the evidence from the days when we had guns on campus, as well as the data from states that have passed CHL laws, clearly indicates that this is not a concern. If the mere presence of more guns is dangerous in itself, why are there not thousands of wrongful shooting incidents, or at least accidents, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where every American carries a loaded gun all the time and everyone is stressed out and "jumpy" ? Remember, many of those who want to carry on campus are our veterans. Why are less safe when they are carrying back here than they were overseas? How about, "All the crazies will be carrying on campus"? Hey, they are NOW, they already beak the laws. How about, "People will feel safer"? WHICH people, not ME! Only the totally uninformed would. How about all the innocent folks who'll get hit in the crossfire? The first mass shooting on a campus happened at UT Austin, in 1965, when a nut started shooting students from a clock tower on campus. According to the retired Texas Ranger who went up the tower (with the assistance of an armed civilian, by the way), and shot the "sniper," he never hit anyone after UT students started shooting back with hunting rifles in their trucks. No one was killed or injured in the "crossfire," but the shooter was kept pinned down by student fire until the Ranger was able to shoot him. I have a CHL and I feel safer when I carry. Why isn't MY right to feel safe as important as that of someone who doesn't even want to accept responsibility for his/her own safety?

    • Posted By: SCCC_CL_OUHSC @ 02/18/2008 6:13:09 PM

      You make excellent points! Great post!

  • Posted By: MikeIL @ 02/18/2008 4:01:55 PM

    One of the mass murder victims at NIU was over 30 and a 10 year veteran of the U.S. Army. The perfect candidate for a concealed carry permit if Illinois were like most of the rest of the US. But illinois is not. It has some of the most rectrictive gun laws in the country. Only police are allowed to lawfully carry weapons. It is absolutley ignorant to think that the Army veteran murder victim or someone else in that classroom, would not have been able to stop the shooter. The simple awful truth is maniacs often seek out "gun free" zones so they can be assured their victims will be unarmed. The City of Chicago is one huge "gunfree" zone, but that does not seem to keep it from competing as the murder capital of the US every year.

  • Posted By: MikeIL @ 02/18/2008 3:56:01 PM

    One of the victims killed at NIU was over 30 and a ten year veteran of the U.S. Army. It is absolutley insulting and ridiculous to think that she, and others like her who would qualify qualify for concealed carry permits, if Illinois had such a law (Under no circumstances are citizens in Illinois allowed to carry conceaed weapons) -- would not have been able to stop the shooter. The fact is maniacs seek out"no-gun" zones where they can be assured they will not face any real opposition.

  • Posted By: Woodpiggie @ 02/17/2008 9:03:03 PM

    Notice that the psychos usually are not so crazy as to open fire in a police station or a gun store. They tend to like nice soft gun free zones replete with helpless targets. Nothing makes more sense to me than banning, or severly limiting the number of gun-free zones for screened,trained and tested civilians.

    Here's what I think is a viable solution for a campus environment: Allow conceiled cary, but limit the pistols to over/under derringers. It would be virtually impossible to pull off a massacre with one of these, but very easy to stop one. ....Your welcome.

    • Posted By: jtcollier @ 02/18/2008 2:45:02 PM

      Uh, great idea. Can we see if the psycho who committs these slaughter fest will abide by that over under rule also? That is the point. That is not a compromise. We don't need to compromise anything. Daily we are comprmised by thinking like that. The real solution is to stop attacking law abiding citizens with antiquated laws and PUNISH those criminals as we had intended with the laws we have. We need to stop punishing law abiding citizens with these really well thought out ideas that controlling the guns in our hands will do the same for the criminals. I don't mean to belittle, but what you present was once the begining as to why we are where we are at now. Of course some other factors were in that as well.

    • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 9:20:38 PM

      problem is over under Derringers are not enough caliber/power to stop some idiot on sum lsd or coke or w.e drug of choice. but awesome approach to an issue.

      • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 9:28:04 PM

        Retract my statement, just saw a 45/70 derringer that would certainly put someone down. haha like your idea makes sense now

  • Posted By: GustoMaybe @ 02/18/2008 4:22:04 AM

    I had to shake my head in disgust the other day as I read a sign posted on the door of a campus building at my school the other day. The sign was put up in response to the NIU massacre, and it outlined the school's policy for a "lockdown." As prescribed by the school administration, there are four actions to be taken in the event of a campus lockdown: First, lock all doors to the classroom, Second, turn off the lights, Third, take cover under desks or tables, Four, wait for police to give the "all clear." As I read these instructions, it was all I could do to resist the urge to take my pen and write, "Five, for God's sake, don't shoot back because somebody might get hurt!" I hold a valid Texas concealed handgun license, but state law prohibits carry in all schools even at the college level. How many more defenseless students and faculty members are going to be gunned down before the administrators and legislators stop perpetuating the fairy-tale of the "gun-free zone?" They ban law-abiding citizens from carrying their defensive firearms on campus, while at the same time boasting about how everyone can "feel safe" because guns are no allowed on campus. And yet, surprise surprise, the psychopaths and madmen continue to bring guns onto campuses across the country and wreak bloody havoc. When you deny a person the use of effective tools with which to defend themselves against violent, armed attackers, you effectively condemn them to either try to run away, or to cower under a desk and wait for a madman to decide the moment they will cease to exist with the pull of a trigger. Simple as that. "Gun-free zones" may as well have signs posted at every entrance reading, "Killers:All victims in this area have been disarmed for your safety and convenience. Rest assured that they will offer no effective resistance. Thank you, and enjoy your spree. Signed: The Management."

    • Posted By: jtcollier @ 02/18/2008 12:44:38 PM

      What? Having your a text to your cell phone won't protect you? Amazing, I thought these campuses politicans had it all figured out! Good information.

  • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 8:50:45 PM

    I have a question for everyone using the 2nd Amendment as justification to carry a weapon. How does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Give individuals the right to carry a weapon under normal conditions? The 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure that the United States was prepared to defend itself against attackers at a time of war. How is this even remotely applicable to this discussion? It also uses the words "Well Regulated". That seems to work counter to most of the pro-gun arguments. Now granted...I'm sure plenty of the people on this board are in some sort of Militia, but I don't think that's what TJ and company were referring to. Thoughts?

    • Posted By: jtcollier @ 02/18/2008 12:32:50 PM

      As other colleagues have already stated. The 2nd Amendment does not offer new rights, it protects rights that had already existed. A fatal flaw of the anti-gun side is to look at the 2nd Amendment as a right granting document. It is not. It had already recognized citizens rights and aimed to protect them further from possible government tyranny (what is occurring now). If you were an English expert as I am not, you could evaluate the language use as many have done and find that the ???right of the people to keep and bear arms??? has been found to be an independent clause/statement. Thus giving no meaningful relationship to that clause and the clause of the militia. The amendment is a compilation of several independent clauses solely placed to protect the existing rights. Of course, the other side of the debate wishes to combine the clauses to make it a militia/wartime amendment. The simple solution is to make weapon charges more strict, enforce the current sentencing guidelines and allow law abiding citizens the already GOD given right to protect themselves. Anyone that challenges a person???s right to protect themselves needs to do some serious reflection. In the 1-3 seconds I have to make a lethal judgment between life and death, are the police going to be there to stop this violent action another brings upon me? If you were to choose to allow the police to protect you, you would be having family provide you an expensive funeral. No police agency in this nation can be there to protect its citizens in situations as described. Look to D.C. Police for this issue, they feel they have NO obligation to protect citizens. Whether they admit it or not, they (police departments) are primarily crime prevention and at that it is aimed at teaching persons how to secure personal belongings and real property from robbers and burglars. Last time I checked, when I got to Home Depot to get a new deadbolt, the customer service person there can tell me more than the police about how the lockset works and what it will protect me from. Police are real good at prevention (to an extent), stopping and citing traffic violations, arresting for crimes committed in their presence (rare), and investigating all sorts of crimes that already post facto. I don???t want to be a post facto statistic. It may happen, but I want to have the right to attempt trying to protect myself doing it. Good debate! Thanks for the views!

    • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 9:13:24 PM

      Actually the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from the government as well so we can fight back if they do something stoopid. Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans form exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms

      • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 9:47:21 PM

        OK...So I don't see a need to fight off invaders or overthrow the government right now, so by that argument there should be no need to take your guns out of the gun case under your bed right?

        • Posted By: James J. @ 02/17/2008 10:21:58 PM

          First, you have to understand that the Bill of Rights was not granting any new rights ??? it merely recognized the pre-existing rights. This goes to the essence of the inalienable rights. The right to life implies the right to self-defense ??? otherwise, the right to life would have no meaning.

          Second. The Militia Act of 1792 defines the unorganized militia as all people (at the time, all white men 17-45 years of age -- at the time the normal active adult longevity) capable of bearing arms, who, if summoned for service, are to provide THEIR OWN guns and ammo. This tells you about the ownership of guns as well as about the Militia. (Thus, the National Guard is not the militia ??? they do not own their guns.)

          Third. What does "Well regulated" mean? If you look into the literature of the period, regulated means well-drilled and well-prepared ??? it does not mean (tightly) controlled. The language does evolve.

          Fourth. You get too short-sighted with the 2nd Amendment. You should start looking at the State Constitutions ??? they are not meaningless, you know. 44 out of 50 State constitutions recognize the right to bear arms. I live in PA; the right to bear arms is stipulated as explicitly INDIVIDUAL right; no reference to ANY militia.

          Fifth. The anti-gunners, such as yourself, are looking at only one side of the equation ??? they refuse to see the life-saving aspects of gun-ownership. The Justice Department of Bill Clinton's ??? not a pro-gunner ??? authored a paper with statistics on legitimate use of guns for self-defense. Some 60-80,000 people a year use guns to defend life and property. Some criminologists put that number at ten times higher, but I'll go with Clinton's Justice Department. That is a lot of lives saved. So much for your idea of putting the gun away.
          http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvfsdaft.htm

          Please don't count on other people to always defend you & your family, whether it's the police or anyone else.

          Regards,
          James J.

          • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 10:30:17 PM

            Glad you have more knowledge about this and can explain it to these anti gunners, I would really like to see more of the supreme court challenge these unconstitutional laws that states and localities have implemented.

            • Posted By: James J. @ 02/17/2008 10:49:08 PM

              I agree. But, Bush's Justice Department labored mightily and brought forth mouse, if the amicus to the Supreme Court in WDC case is any indication.

              It seems like my fellow Republicans have a hard time to get their ducks in order.

              Btw, I see that the board software made my double hyphens into three question marks. That's annoying.

              But the ignorant people -- quite overrepresented amongst the anti-gunners -- are definitely more annoying.

              regards,
              James J.

              • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 11:09:56 PM

                Yeah, Definitely, DC gun Ban was stoooopid to say the least, Obviously Supreme Court is just way f-in stupid too. We are talking about reducing crime how to save America, Wish people would get with it and stop being so ignorant. Good to have well informed people by my side,

        • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 10:19:52 PM

          Agreed, But if u allow them to take away ur rights to defend your self and they day something goes to *** with the goverment, This is theoretical but still what would you want to defend your self.

  • Posted By: jtcollier @ 02/17/2008 8:28:34 PM

    What everyone seems to forget is the criminals could care less about laws. A criminal could care less about a gun law. This has been proven time and again. All one has to do is watch documentary that highlights the criminal activites of gangs and criminals. All one has to do is look to the DOJ/FBI crime statistics to see how, when, where and who is committing these violent crimes and with what. It is not the gun bought in a legal gun store or at a gun show. It is the gun bought off of the street under illegal means. Sure there are these crimes that occur when a person legally purchases a gun and goes on a shooting rampage because they went off their medications. We will never stop these crimes with laws against legal, law abiding citizens with foolish antiquated laws aimed at disarming.Why would you not want law abiding citizens to be allowed to protect themselves and quite possibly others? I teach at a community college. Our 'safety' is a joke! They call it 'safety' because security is too hostile. The staff is generally students who need a job and can't even remember to open doors! I am going to depend on them to come to my rescue when a crazed person or student goes on a violent rampage? I don't think so. On any given day a student could be illegally carrying a weapon on campus! I want the law abiding students, faculty and citizens who have training and been cleared to be able to carry their weapons and protect themselves and others. I want strict laws against the students or persons who carry a weapon on campus without the permit to carry. These are the people we need to regulate! Fact: anyone can harm or kill anyone at any given moment! Do I want a fighting chance to come home to my family or do I want to go with the antiquated laws and possibly find myself in prison for weapons violation against carrying on campus or wind up dead! I know my answer. For those that oppose, please stand aside. I am a law abiding, legally permitted citizen exercising my 2nd amendment rights to carry and subsequently protect myself.

    • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 8:51:24 PM

      Please Check Out http://www.concealedcampus.org/ Maybe Join the group. This is an uphill battle.Glad you accept reality.

      • Posted By: jtcollier @ 02/18/2008 12:11:52 PM

        Thank you! Great information.

  • Posted By: kahman @ 02/18/2008 10:17:15 AM

    For more information about obtaining a concealed carry permit, you can visit http://www.usacarry.com

  • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/16/2008 10:26:07 AM

    We need total and complete gun control. No guns for anyone. Make it a federal offense to own one, and a life sentence if you're caught with one. This love affair Americans have with a weapon is sick and twisted.

    • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/16/2008 9:42:00 PM

      Heres a Challenge to those believing the answer to gun violence is confiscation and prohibition of guns. Heres some FACTS Gun Grabbers cant deal with.

      1: By 2008 there were 290 Million Registered guns in the US and an estimated 120 Mill Unregistered. By 2009 there will be an estimated HALF BILLION. There are 90 million gun owners. 1 out of every 3 households has a gun. The DOJ admits it couldnt put a dent in these numbers.

      2. Should police be charged with the DANGEROUS task of gun confiscation, most cops are Conservatives, and believe in the Constitution. I???m a former cop and questioned other cops. ALL say that due to the litigation and public relations disaster of Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation, theyd refuse confiscation orders. They said enforcement is Unconstitutional, and require entering homes of neighbors, and friends who own guns. Theyd refuse. Then theres the risk from people like me whod use DEADLY FORCE to protect 2ed Amd. rights. The war on drugs, HAS police cooperation, and failed. Think of the failure of gun confiscation with no enforcement. And an unenforceable law ceases to exist.

      3: The alternative to gun grabbers is Repeal 2ed Amd. as was done with the 18th. But the 18th was VERY UNPOPULAR. The 2ed. has strong support. The Bill of RIGHTS, are viewed as sacred, and more resistant to change than the others. Getting 38 Gun Friendly States, plus 2/3 of the House and Senate to repeal, is a Lib Wet Dream Fantasy. A Gun Free Nation, is a FANTASY; believed only by DELUSIONALS and the terminally STUPID. So I offer this challenge: SHOW ME A PRACTICAL WAY TO IMPLEMENT YOUR FANTASY. So far, no one has ever answered my challenge. And we now hear from delusional dreamers only SILENCE. LMAO


      • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 10:27:12 AM

        1) Start a governement funded buy-back program financed by stiffer fines for gun related offenses. This won't take too many guns off the street, but there will be some criminals, addicts, etc, that need the money that will choose to turn in un needed or stolen weapons. My guess is we could get a 5-10% reduction from this.
        2) Don't control the guns, control the ammo. Make it very difficult to obtain ammo, and establish mandatory jail sentences for any caught with ammo. Shut down all gun stores, gun shows, web sites, firing ranges, etc, that sell ammo or things to make ammo (casings, gun powder). Some people would stockpile ammo, but if thier using it, they will eventually run out, and if their not using it, then we have no problem. When people run out, they would be forced to get it through illegal means, and most average americans (even gun owners) will choose to be on the right side of the law, even if they don't agree with it. So effectively this will render a large number of the guns useless. My guess is that this will reduce guns (or at least loaded guns) by another 50-75%. Many of the owners that don't want to buy illegal ammo will also choose to sell their gun back to the governent.
        3) For the remainder, we would have to wait 20-50 years for you all to die out. As the gun freaks continue to die off, we would bring in new generations of Americans that never new of a country where people were free to own a firearm.

        • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/17/2008 12:44:38 PM

          Obviously josefalaciano never heard of RELOADING EQUIPMENT owned by hundreds of thousands of gun owners. Cutting supply of Legal Ammo will simply open a cottage industry for people like me. Remember Prohibition? Jose probably doesnt because he has probably never read a history book. It didnt work in the 1920s. Wont work now for the same reasons.
          Jose loses round 1. Care for another Jose? LMAO

          • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 2:01:25 PM

            Enter Your Comment
            Like I said, there will be people willing to purchase on the black market, but most average americans will choose to be on the right side of the law.

            • Posted By: rspock @ 02/17/2008 7:41:47 PM

              Most Americans (and courts) would also agree your program severely violates the 2nd Amendment. You'll have to repeal that first. I somehow don't think your group will be able to pull that off.

              • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 8:21:35 PM

                You should try reading the The 2nd amendment sometime. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment was established to ensure that we have militia available to defend the country in times of war...Not so you can carry a weapon with you to the mall. So...OK...so as not to infringe on your 2nd amendment rights, you can keep a weapon under your bed so that in the event that we are invaded, you and your gun freak buddies can pull together a militia. But unless you are defending the US against a hostile enemy, then don't throw that 2nd amenda crap out there. It wasn't meant to be used the way the NRA has tried to interpret it.

                • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 8:22:59 PM

                  Oh...and I almost forgot...the key words in the 2nd amendment are WELL REGULATED.

                  • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/17/2008 11:19:00 PM

                    . Actually the Key words of the 2ed Amd are: The right of THE PEOPLE. Obviously JoseFellatio never went to law school, which I did, or hed know how to read legal text and be aware of recent court decisions. This IGNORANUS thinks the 2ed Amd refers to a Collective right despite recent Fed court rulings. And hes not aware the USSC is about to chisel that in stone when it hears DC v Heller. This MORON obviously has the IQ of a DEAD TREE STUMP.
                    So tell us JoseFellatio: Do you live on a diet of STUPID PILLS or did you inherit your mental retardation form your parents? Jose loses again. Arent you getting tired of being exposed as MORON? Havent you figured out yet that in this battle of wits you really are UNARMED?......LMAO

                    • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/18/2008 12:17:59 AM

                      For someone who supposedly went to law school, you're debating skills are ridiculous. You should consider replacing insults and derading comments with logic and intelligent points. Here's what I hear when I read your remarks..."Insult, insult, [insert canned NRA talking point], insult, insult, [repeat canned NRA talking point], insult."

                      Nice work.

                      • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/18/2008 1:15:41 AM

                        Had you posted well conceived, intelligent arguments to support your position, Id have responded in kind. As it is, neither you nor your opinions deserve respect. Do good legal research and present RATIONAL arguments and you will get the respect you feel you deserve. Although I attended one of the better law schools, there were still a few students who based their arguments on feelings and emotion rather that reason and logic. They did not do well. I suspect had you the ability to be accepted into Law School, you would have done just as poorly.

                        • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/18/2008 1:36:15 AM

                          Final note to JoseFellatio before I place you on PERMAMENT IGNORE:

                          A law school education helps ones ability to reason and understand the use of FACTS rather than opinion or speculation in seeking the truth. I look at the issue of gun control not based on parroting the NRA, of which Im not a member, but based on my training.
                          But you will note from my screen name that Ive chosen a more enjoyable occupation.
                          And the next time you fly, you may appreciate the fact that someone like me is in command of the aircraft: because Im authorized to be armed.
                          Have a nice day

                          • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/18/2008 10:05:18 AM

                            Actually...I'll probably start taking a train now;

        • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/17/2008 6:04:22 PM

          JoseFellatio claims: Americans will choose to be on the right side of the law.

          Right Jose. Just like most Americans chose to obey the law during prohibition and not use illegal drugs today. And we know how well Prohibition and the War on Drugs has worked. And speaking of drugs, either Jose hasnt been taking the meds he has been prescribed or has fried his brain on drugs he should NOT be taking.
          You lose again Jose. Care for another round or have you finally had enough?
          I suggest your retire gracefully since in the battle of wits you are obviously UNARMED.


    • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/17/2008 1:00:47 PM

      .Re; josefalacianos suggestion of a Gun Buy back program:
      Jose claims this will reduce guns by 5 ??? 10%. And just where does he get these numbers? Likely form where the SUN DONT SHINE.

      Note: CA. Senator Don Perata recently tried this approach offering $250 / gun. in Oakland CA.
      So YES, I sold him a gun: An ancient, broken and therefore useless .22 pistol, worth about $70.
      I laughed all the way to the bank. And Im still laughing. LMAO

      Note: No gun owner I know of with a working and relatively valuable gun has ever sold one to a buy back program.
      Have any BRILLIANT ideas jose?

      • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/17/2008 1:59:38 PM

        Like I said...the buy back if mainly for people hard up for money...criminals and addicts. Plus, I'm guessing that you and the "gun owners you know" are part of the "gun nut" contention that we are just going to have to wait for to die off. I'm willing to wait it out.

        • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/17/2008 4:08:25 PM

          JoseFellatio says the solution is wait till the Gun Nuts die off.

          Dont hold your breath Jose: As in every other group with a political agenda; as we die off our kids take up the cause; as Im successfully raising mine to do. They own and carry guns and are teaching my grand kids to do the same. And so it goes. So this IGNORANUS will have a LONG wait: as in FOREVER.

          Any more UNREALISTIC IDEAS that I can take great pleasure in shooting down?

          As I said in my first post: In all the years Ive made this challenge, NO ONE, including this IGNORANUS, has been able to give a REALISTIC, PRACTICAL suggestion to create a Perfect Gun Free Utopia.
          WE DONT LIVE ANYWHERE PERFECT. AND WE NEVER WILL.

        • Posted By: James Macklin @ 02/17/2008 4:05:32 PM

          Criminals have plenty of money, they steal money. A gun is tool they also steal.

          Buy backs get grandads WWII booty after he dies of old age.

    • Posted By: bvfd920 @ 02/16/2008 10:36:25 AM

      Start building the jails then......the 90 million gun owners in this country (who by the way just happen to work and do the jobs necessary to pay for the free healthcare and education and keep this country running day to day) will never turn them over.....

      • Posted By: josefeliciano @ 02/16/2008 10:47:59 AM

        I'll bet their sentiment would change pretty quickly the first time they saw their neigbor hauled away.

        • Posted By: bvfd920 @ 02/16/2008 11:09:48 AM

          Try me....

          • Posted By: 747Driver @ 02/16/2008 9:11:13 PM

            Here???s a Challenge to ALL who believe the answer to occasional gun violence is confiscation and prohibition of guns. Here are some INCONVENIENT TRUTHS Gun Grabbers refuse to deal with.

            1: By 2008 there were 290 Million Registered guns in the U.S. and an estimated 120 Million Unregistered. By 2009 there will be an estimated HALF BILLION guns. There are 90 million gun owners. 1 out of every 3 households has a gun. The DOJ admits it couldn't put even an insignificant dent in these numbers.

            2. In the unlikely event police were charged with the DANGEROUS task of gun confiscation, Police officers are overwhelming Conservative, believe in upholding the Constitution. I should know. I???m a former cop. I???ve questioned other cops and ALL say that due to law suits and the public relations disaster from the Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation, they???d refuse to carry out confiscation orders. They told me that enforcement would be Unconstitutional, and require entering the homes of neighbors, friends, and relatives, many of whom own guns, and they would refuse. Then there???s the risk from people like me who???d not hesitate using DEADLY FORCE to protect 2ed Amd. rights. The war on drugs, which HAS police cooperation, failed. Think of the failure gun confiscation would be with limited to no enforcement. And an unenforceable law ceases to exist.

            3: The alternative left to gun control fanatics is Repeal 2ed Amendment, as was done with the 18th. But the Volstead Amd. was universally UNPOPULAR. The 2ed. has strong support. The Bill of RIGHTS, are viewed as sacred, and more resistant to change than the other 17. Any attempt to get 38 Gun Friendly States, plus 2/3 of the House and Senate to repeal, is a Lib Wet Dream Fantasy. A ???Gun Free Nation???, is a FANTASY; believed only by the DELUSIONAL and the terminally STUPID. So I offer this challenge: EITHER SHOW ME A PRACTICAL WAY TO IMPLEMENT YOUR FANTASY. So far, no one has ever answered my challenge. And we now hear from these delusional dreamers only SILENCE. LMAO


        • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/16/2008 11:42:11 AM

          Your like stalllin, total control eat sleep crap when u say its okay because its safe. Why dont u take away knifes, cars, hammers, lawn tools and everything eles used to murder sumone, take away my hands there lethal, or realize that u need something to even the score. I will never turn my guns over, and if they try to take them i guess imma have to go down fighting

      • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/16/2008 11:39:35 AM

        I have to say this is a moronic and ignorant statement. You mean to tell me you think you can get all guns off the street. hahahaha U would be lucky to get people to turn there fire arms over. some of those firearms are worth 27000 dollars like to see the government buy that gun. And your also the person that thinks everyone belongs in prison, i wish you would get in touch with reality. Jail isn't a deterrence, get real dude

  • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/18/2008 9:43:22 AM

    I also want to remind people that this debate is not only about school shootings but other types of victimization that occurs on campuses nation wide. These acts of violence can also be met with a concealed carry, Such crimes as Rape, Robbery, Assault, Kidnapping, and much much more. All when the police and security guards cant be to protect the weak and overpowered.

  • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/18/2008 9:26:05 AM

    The very best thing we can do for this issue is to vote. . . Society needs to take a stand and fight back their governments dumb decisions.

  • Posted By: SCCC_CL_OUHSC @ 02/18/2008 1:35:42 AM

    I am studying medicine right now and I agree, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc are riddled with corruption and are not doing much to truly help the mentally ill. I took classes in psychology in undergrad and I agree that a lot can be done for these people in your department, but as a psychologist you probably realize the magnitude of treating all mentally ill patients to the point of being cured or at least to the point where they are stable enough to not go on a killing spree. Or even just detecting all the potential people who might do so. There is just not enough time/money in the world to put security guards in every classroom, reform the medical community, and treat every mental illness in order to prevent violent acts from occurring in the first place. It is a truly noble concept you have brought to this discussion, but (at least for now) I don???t believe it is a viable solution and I can think of no other viable and immediate alternative other than taking up arms (legally) and defending myself and those around me if such a situation were to present itself.

    Everyone else,

    Let me close by clarifying a little bit of information about concealed carry. We aren???t talking about giving guns to anyone and everyone. Those of us who carry (in most states) have taken a firearms safety course, passed a written exam, displayed appropriate control and use of a firearm, submitted fingerprints, passed state background checks, passed federal (FBI) background checks, and paid well over $100 in order to obtain a permit. This system, while not perfect, does a terrific job of screening individuals who want to carry a firearm and in most cases assures that the general public is in no more danger than they were before each applicant received their license.

    I really didn???t mean for this to be so long! :) Thanks for reading!

    Don???t forget to check out www.concealedcarry.com

    • Posted By: SCCC_CL_OUHSC @ 02/18/2008 1:52:50 AM

      This site really does not like apostrophes!

  • Posted By: Bill1111 @ 02/18/2008 12:46:58 AM

    www.concealedcamups.org

    • Posted By: SCCC_CL_OUHSC @ 02/18/2008 1:39:43 AM

      He means www.concealedcampus.org :)

  • Posted By: SCCC_CL_OUHSC @ 02/18/2008 1:38:25 AM

    There is a lot of excellent debate going on here! Great job guys! And for the most part it is all very mature and intelligent discussion.

    humbleopinion,

    I understand and appreciate your desire to get to the true root of the problem. I think I see your point exactly as you intend for us to see it. It would be truly a great thing if we could discover what it is that makes people suddenly snap and go on a killing spree and find a way to prevent these terrible things from happening all together. I would love to live in a world where our safety is guaranteed and there is no need of firearms for self defense. The unfortunate reality is that despite our best efforts, it is extremely unlikely that this will ever happen. There always have been people who have mental illness and/or participate in violent acts and there always will be. There are people out there studying these illnesses and looking for new and better ways to deal with these kinds of people but the truth is if there is a cure for violence we are far far away from finding it. I agree completely with you that we should focus on prevention of violence. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. But while there needs to be some people working on prevention, others must think of ways to contain and minimize the damage that results from violence until a better long term solution can be attained. Everyone wants the problem to go away, but it isn't going to happen overnight and in the meantime we have to do the best with what we have now. It would be nice to put a security guard in every classroom, every building, every street corner but right now that is simply impossible.

    ........................Continue Below......................

  • Posted By: SCCC_CL_OUHSC @ 02/18/2008 1:37:13 AM

    I would also like to discuss your concern about people being scared in class if they knew that some of their fellow classmates, or students in your case, were carrying loaded firearms. First, why would you be less scared if it was a security guard with the weapon? If you put a security guard in every classroom you would most likely have the same amount of guns in the school building as if licensed students were allowed to carry based on the most current statistics I have found. Are adults that are titled "security guard" any less susceptible to the mental illnesses than adults that are titled "student" are? I think you are putting a little too much trust into the term "security guard." We aren't talking about security guards and students we are talking about adults who have passed the same state and federal background checks as any other adult you would call a "security guard." The only difference is a security guard may go through a little more training, but many concealed carriers, like myself, continue their firearms education beyond that of many security guards. Secondly, I don't know what state you live in but most states already allow licensed individuals to carry a loaded firearm concealed on their person in most public places. The public is aware of this and there has been no mass panic or paranoia. I have never heard of anyone being too scared to go to the bank or to a movie theater or shopping because they know that people may be carrying guns. Nobody has ever looked at me and rushed away because they thought I could be carrying a gun. I have carried a firearm legally for years and no one has ever even realized that I was carrying. Even close friends who I am around a lot neither know about my firearm or worry that I might be carrying one despite being aware that it is legal for me to do so. It certainly doesn't stop students in colleges that already allow concealed carry from going to class. My point is you should have no more reason to worry about teaching a class of students that are allowed to carry firearms than you do just walking down the street or in a bank on any given day. (Assuming you live in a concealed carry state.) ................Continue Below

  • Posted By: jdoll123 @ 02/18/2008 12:49:28 AM

    ------------
    my name is jdoll, a beautiful 40+ woman from us.. internet is a good place to meet friends or even more, right? I just want to find a mature gentleman for fun time here... i also uploaded my hot or even n**ked photos under the name jdoll123 on SeniorWoo.com..maybe you want to check them out.

  • Posted By: Bill1111 @ 02/18/2008 12:40:54 AM

    Finally someone gets it right. Thank you Lewis for helping to promote concealed carry on campus!
    Ill make an analogy for some of you who just dont get it:
    Many people that live in the states bordering the Gulf have supplies (i.e. water, food) so that in the case of a hurricane, they will have food and water. So are these people being paranoid and living in fear? No it's called BEING PREPARED!

  • Posted By: Bill1111 @ 02/18/2008 12:39:37 AM

    Finally someone gets it right. Thank you Lewis for helping to promote concealed carry on campus!
    Ill try to make an analogy for some of you who dong quite get it:
    Many people that live in the states bordering the Gulf have supplies (i.e. water, food) so that in the case of a hurricane, they will have food and water. So are these people being paranoid or are they living in fear? No it's called BEING PREPARED.

  • Posted By: PROGUN1 @ 02/17/2008 11:12:02 PM

    http://www.concealedcampus.org/

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse