Preventing school shootings

[JackoliciousLegs]

Jack, your silly hippie bullshit doublespeak entertains me to no end.

Tell me, since guns have no practical use other than to inflict harm, and we don't need them, then why do we have these:

Nice knives!

[CaptainHenreh]

Jack, your silly hippie bullshit doublespeak entertains me to no end.

[Kaan]

I for one would not feel safer knowing that most of the putzes I see walking around campus could be carrying guns. Especially when the sun goes down and the beer pong tables start to empty. I've stared down the barrel of a gun before and it is not a fun thing to go through. I'm all for people having the right to bear arms, but I personally think firearms generally bring more trouble than they prevent.

I know i'm an old man and shit... but back in my day the only people that would have been carrying on campus would have also been the police cadets, current and former... at least they have the opportunity for training, can shoot whenever they want, get ammo for cheap to practice, they are all taught the law especially when it comes to campus life and fire arms.

I took weekly trips to the gun ranges around town and off 33. I was shooting over 2k rounds a week prepping for competition. The only students that i ever saw were the other cadets. there were about 70 of them at the time. Considering there are only 8 police officers on during the day time at JMU... i think things are automatically safer!

btw... i think you should be able to carry a fire arm, even if alcohol is present... now being under the influence is a whole different matter.... of which i'm one of the biggest offenders i might add. i believe i scared Evans girlfriend at our house warming party... but i wasnt mad, i wasnt pissed (suprise!) and i know my gun and i know who was handling it, its current state of being armed, where to point it, etc but then again i've owned that same gun for almost 7 years now!

[Beej]

I'd love to put the time in to a million quotes of things I want to react to, but I don't have time.

Rex-
I can see where you're coming from with all the examples of unnecessary things in society. Enzo's, hamburgers, whatever. But are you suggesting that there is no reasonable place to draw the line? Should we allow people to lug rocket launchers around? I'm sure I don't need to point out the difference between a hamburger and a gun (and yes, it's obvious you used that as a demonstration of exaggeration). The only reason a gun exists is to destroy something. Whether that's done under the guise of protection, sport, or overcompensation for a small penis...breaking shit is the only thing a gun will ever do. I agree with Lee when he says that guns cause more problems than they prevent. I don't know where to begin looking up statistics about this, but I'd love it if someone could find something to prove or disprove this.

As for blaming society, hrug:. There always have been, and always will be, fucking psychos. I agree we're a selfish society, but maniacs will always exist and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Kaan]

Guns dont kill people and spoons didnt make rosie odonnel fat.

[WRXtranceformed]

/Happy Gilmore

[Apoc]

So what have we learned today? No one cares after the news stops telling us to and nothing will change. Yay America!

[WRXtranceformed]

So what have we learned today? No one cares after the news stops telling us to and nothing will change. Yay America!

Does it surprise you?

[Apoc]

No... just disheartening.

[HAULN-SS]

From a study about gun control in britain:

Meanwhile, gun crimes in Britain are increasing. According to London's authoritative Sunday Times, the number of firearm offenses in Britain increased almost 40 percent from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 in 2000. These are still small figures in comparison to the United States, but the trend is the opposite of what might be expected.

It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to over 12,000 in 1997-8.
End quote


And more from the surveys revealed that 23% of kids who were expelled from school (read: possible troublemakers) claimed to have had access to a gun within the last year.

Also - you can read up on this - which is a perfect case study. people felt safer, fear of crime went down, but gun crimes went up! False sense of security is just asking for trouble. Not to mention, Knife Crimes Tripled!

remember kids: knives take lives.

[Kaan]

I agree with Lee when he says that guns cause more problems than they prevent. I don't know where to begin looking up statistics about this, but I'd love it if someone could find something to prove or disprove this.

I encourage you to write both sides. Write a group like Gun Owners of America and ask for their stats. Then write a group that is anti gun. ask them both for information and statistics. I'm sure they will both send it to you. Read it for yourself, read both slants, and figure it out. because if i come up with my information you are going to say its scewed! but i can tell you that you will find two differences in the information used.

Pro gun people will always use information on national averages and will always bring up places like Florida and Conn.

Anti gun people will generally bring up individual acts and have less statistics and more emotional stories.

in the end its up to you and how you feel after reading both sides of the issue to figure out who you beleive. I've been a life time NRA member since i was 5 years old. I was raised around guns most of my life and yes half my family is "redneck." I still chose to edcuate myself on the issues and do my thing! Read the laws, the statistics, and the most important thing is to educate yourself about how to handle a fire arm yourself.

[CaptainHenreh]

But are you suggesting that there is no reasonable place to draw the line? Should we allow people to lug rocket launchers around?

Sure...if they have the right permits. Damn, I hear this every time. "Well, why don't we just let everyone have NUKES THEN!??!? HUH!??!11eleventy."

Well, BJ, if you want to buy a Tank, or a MiG, or an RPG Launcher, you can. You just have to pay for it. But see heres the thing, all that shit is strictly and heavily regulated already. You can't buy a fully-automatic anything without permits, background checks, and a big fat wad of cash. But if you're willing to put the time, effort, and big wad of cash up on the table...you can have those things.

The trick is this...the second amendment doesn't protect your right to a rocket launcher. Arms vs Ordinance, where guns fall into the first one and artillery (which would include rockets and their launchers) fall into the second.

The line has already been drawn.

I'm going to repeat that.

The line has already been drawn.

There's no need to draw new lines, or re-interpret the (pretty clear, IHMO) second amendment.

[Kaan]

oh yeah... both sides... please link your quotes and stats... i hate random numbers thrown around.

[Beej]

From a study about gun control in britain:

Meanwhile, gun crimes in Britain are increasing. According to London's authoritative Sunday Times, the number of firearm offenses in Britain increased almost 40 percent from 4,903 in 1997 to 6,843 in 2000. These are still small figures in comparison to the United States, but the trend is the opposite of what might be expected.

It does not seem that Britain can be said to be a safer place as a result of the gun ban. The police there have traditionally gone unarmed, but the number of incidents in which police officers have had guns issued to them in recognition of potential danger increased from about 6,000 in 1994-95 to over 12,000 in 1997-8.
End quote


And more from the surveys revealed that 23% of kids who were expelled from school (read: possible troublemakers) claimed to have had access to a gun within the last year.

Also - you can read up on this - which is a perfect case study. people felt safer, fear of crime went down, but gun crimes went up! False sense of security is just asking for trouble. Not to mention, Knife Crimes Tripled!

remember kids: knives take lives.

Were there more crimes because there were more laws preventing gun owning/carrying/use? I'd want to see statistics on what kinds of gun laws were broken in 2000 vs 1997.

"Guns don't kill people" argument is retarded. Guns certainly make crimes of ALL types a helluva lot easier.

Kaan- I don't doubt at all that there are hundreds of thousands (millions?) of responsible gun owners. And I know how biased almost any study will be, because the people that conduct it will be leaning towards one direction or the other. It's not an easy argument for either side.

[Beej]

The line has already been drawn.

There's no need to draw new lines, or re-interpret the (pretty clear, IHMO) second amendment.

I don't expect to win anyone over, and I'm sure you know you're not going to change my mind. We're going to have to agree to disagree on where the line is drawn. Amendment or not, it's hundreds of years old, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the times have changed (though gun crime has always been a problem, I'm sure) and that maybe laws should change as well.

Just cause I'm not gonna win doesn't mean I won't try to poke holes.

[Kaan]

Here is exactly what the 2nd amendment 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."

I found it here.... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... ights.html</a><!-- m -->

remember, it says nothing about hunting or any of that crap.

this is from Wikipedia:
Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings:

Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws
The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces
The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya
In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.

[/b]

[HAULN-SS]

uhh..in 1995 britain installed gun bans.

I'm pulling all my info off uk gov websites.



Sharp objects are taking over - the only crimes that are going down, according to the governments own stats, are domestic incidents. Strangers killing Strangers has remained virtually unchanged in 12 years.

And concerning Gun Crimes:

"Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 22,789 recorded crimes in 2004/05. This is 5% down on the previous year, and the first fall since 1997. "

Since 1997! And it was only 5%, so, basically, unchanged since 1997, since It was clearly going up the last 10 years.

And one more quote from the site:

The overall fall masks a big increase in imitation weapon offences, up 55%

So yeah - if that doesnt say that people will find a way to hurt each other, I don't know what will.

[HAULN-SS]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violence/violence19.htm">http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/violen ... ence19.htm</a><!-- m -->


the source, by the way, forgot to link it. If you read the whole thing, you'll basically see that yeah, there are places that there are reductions, but it just makes a low spot for something else to fill up. Overall, it seems like the gun initiatives took away a lot from the citizens, and didn't give them much in return.

I'd also like to note that the reason for the tough gun laws was a knee-jerk reaction to a school shooting.

[Goodspeed]

While I'm all for people having guns, I just don't see why anyone would want or need one on a college campus. The idea that "I need a gun to feel safe" on a college campus, to me, is a "society of fear" way of thinking. I find that a lot of people fear the worst in the safest of conditions. We don't have rapists and murderers running around campus, and if we did, I think our police force is capable enough to deal with any situation. A gun may make you feel safe, but in a highly populated area such as a dorm, accidents can happen and lives can be taken. And if you don't know how to use a gun, it can be taken away from you and used against you. Not to mention, when you mix the drugs and alcohol so prevalent in college with guns, people will die.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, people should be allowed to buy weapons for self defense, but they shouldn't immediately believe that they are safer or that their purchase was necessary. Tighter gun laws can in no way harm anyone, if it means a life is saved then dont' complain about having to wait another week for your seventh hand gun.

But those who said that gun control is attacking the symptom and not the problem are absolutely right. People are motivated to use guns in a lethal way through the failures of family and society. But to everyone using the classic "shut up you liberal" stance, what has Bush and the Republican party done to help reform society? Pretty much nothing. In fact I'm pretty sure they cut spending on after school programs for inner city kids. No politician is perfect, but don't assume liberals are the worst things for guns.

[HAULN-SS]

Goodspeed: I don't think any of us legal owners are complaining about having to wait another week. Most people that I think just don't want there to be laws saying we have to register every weapon we own, saying we can only own certain makes/models/calibers of guns, taking away carry permits, etc. At least that's how I feel about it...waiting a week or some other reasonable amount of time is no big deal.