Gun laws?

oh so now the magazines that were bought are the problem, why aren't we looking at Phizer? The makers of psychotropic drugs, I know from first hand experience that drugs like prozac, and other anti depressants, fuck up your mind worse than before you took them. I never felt worse than when they put me on these types of drugs. That's the problem we need to be investigating. And if just one, just one person in that classroom was a trained firearm user there might not have been anymore than one fatality.

Alternatively, if the kid didn't have it so easy obtaining a gun, he may have been deterred in the first place.

And if we have guns in the classroom around a bunch of prideful, post-adolescent idiots there's going to be way more of a bloodbath in schools.

Even if guns never existed he would have went in there and killed people. You should be ashamed to assume someone is going to kill just because they have a gun, I know loads of people that own guns, and I have never met anyone that had a legal gun that had done something illegal with it. You are talking about one person in millions, so punish the rest of us just because one person fucks up, I don't think so.

I am not suggesting the classrooms be infested with guns, but that if the interested and educated gun owners wanted to carry their weapon with them these college shootings would not happen, they go to these places because they know no one around is armed, did you ever think of that?

So crazy Joe Six Pack's decided he was going to kill a bunch of people, say in Virginia Beach, Two Major malls here, Pembroke and Lynnhaven, lets say Pembroke had a sign posted that prohibits lawfully carried weapons, and say on Lynnhaven Mall's doors there is a Sign welcoming legal concealed weapons. Which mall is Joe going to go murder people in?

On the other side, A responsible gun owner like myself will either avoid Pembroke Mall or make sure I leave the pistol in the car or at home, I am not willing to jeapordize my right to own and carry my weapons. Therefore the only people that have a weapon in that mall are irresponsible gun owners and criminals, no good people with guns in there.

For the school, I do agree, there would be a higher percentage of irresponsible gun use, So how about a special conceal carry campus permit, where the students have to take a course to further educate them on safety and responsibility.

Or the Professor? WHy not?

Besides it's not like these people are going to be bustin down doors to get guns, thanks to liberal teachers unions alarming percentages of students sit in fear of guns and have no motivation to get a gun anyway, but atleast you could let those so motivated to become educated and responsible with a weapon excersize their fundamental right to bear arms. And possibly save countless lives.

Even if guns never existed he would have went in there and killed people.

You can't say that. It's definitely becoming a fad, and killing with guns is so impersonal and easy.

That is true, but a bad person with a gun can only be stopped by a good person with a gun. And all I am saying is to get more good people with guns around.

If you carry a gun and get into a sticky situation, you are going to use it. It's not a good idea to have people carrying handguns in their daily routine.

You are correct, If I'm carrying a gun and I'm threatened I will use it, you think I should just be attacked defenseless? Keep in mind that just the very sight of my gun will send a mugger packing.

I don't see the big obsession of "protecting" yourself. I doubt you'll ever get robbed to begin with, sure you can have a gun, But if you actually keep it somewhere, in a safe or whatnot, you may not even have time to react and get it before you're shot dead. I know you'll probably just say well atleast you gave it a shot, but that really is just irrelevant.

If you don't talk shit, and run your mouth to people, live an honest life you'll probably never, ever have anything to worry about. Get an alarm system on your house, get a couple of big-ass dogs or something, you could always go a non-lethal route to defend yourself. Pepper spray, mace, stun gun, taser, Baseball bat, any of these few could be just as effective as a gun, without the guilt of murdering somebody that's in a worse off situation that you are.

Could you find me a statistic on how many people are killed annually by guns on college campuses? Then divine that number by the total number of college students .

Could you find me a statistic on how many people are killed annually by guns on college campuses? Then divine that number by the total number of college students .

547,000 Americans die every year from cancer.

There are 303,000,000 people in America.

This means that only .18% of Americans die from cancer every year.

Cancer must not be a big problem, then.

Well while looking for shooting statistics I came across this article:

Of course, these horrors are hardly unique to the United States. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries-- including France, Germany and Switzerland-- have experienced multiple-victim shootings. The worst, in Germany, resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators. Of course, since 1997 there have been multiple attacks in the U.S., with the 13 dead at Columbine. Prior to Virginia Tech, the two previous most deadly shootings in the U.S. were the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas, which left 23 people dead, and the shooting at a California McDonald's in 1984, in which 21 people were killed. All these attacks shared something in common: citizens were already banned from having guns in those areas. Indeed, every multiple-victim public shooting of any significant size in the United States has occurred in one of these gun-free zones. The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws. Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its gun-free zone policy and suspended

Up until the early 1970s, Israel had to deal with the cold reality of terrorists who would take machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and Synagogues and open fire. That type of attack doesn’t occur any more. Why? Israelis realized that armed citizens could stop such an attacker before he did much damage. About 15 percent of Israelis are now licensed to carry weapons, and determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294954,00.html

That's perfectly logical. If guns are accessable, yet banned in CERTAIN places, a criminal with any sort of common sense will target the places where guns are banned.

If they were banned EVERYWHERE, for everyone but law enforcement, and guns were not so easily accessable, there would be much less of a problem.

Regulating guns in only certain places is asking for trouble.

The only person you can take guns from is a law abiding citizen, you cannot make a law that criminals will not break. There's plenty of places in the world you can live that good people cannot own guns, do you think it is safer? You think no one gets shot?

Also, why can't you accept the fact that if this government gets too powerful, and we lose our liberty, these guns we have are going to be our liberty. I believe its a big part of why we still have freedom of speech and religion and other basic rights, first you take guns, then the others just dissapear in time. Because those in power know we could not defend ourselves.

Another thing, if you think making all gun sales illegal and confiscation and all that bullshit is going to mean there is no guns, get a grip. Theres like millions of tons of illegal drugs and guns alike shipped into this country every year. You are only going to take guns away from good people.

The only person you can take guns from is a law abiding citizen, you cannot make a law that criminals will not break. There's plenty of places in the world you can live that good people cannot own guns, do you think it is safer? You think no one gets shot? Also, why can't you accept the fact that if this government gets too powerful, and we lose our liberty, these guns we have are going to be our liberty. I believe its a big part of why we still have freedom of speech and religion and other basic rights, first you take guns, then the others just dissapear in time. Because those in power know we could not defend ourselves. Another thing, if you think making all gun sales illegal and confiscation and all that bullshit is going to mean there is no guns, get a grip. Theres like millions of tons of illegal drugs and guns alike shipped into this country every year. You are only going to take guns away from good people.

But the fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong on all of your points, if you look at other countries that have gun regulation. They are not ran by a dictator, they have a much lower murder rate, and fewer criminals get their hands on guns.

That's perfectly logical. If guns are accessable, yet banned in CERTAIN places, a criminal with any sort of common sense will target the places where guns are banned. If they were banned EVERYWHERE, for everyone but law enforcement, and guns were not so easily accessable, there would be much less of a problem. Regulating guns in only certain places is asking for trouble.

Sure, if you banned guns in general they might be harder to access for the average person. There will be a huge market for importing illegal firearms much like modern drug smuggling. Millions if not billions that would be spent on domestically produced firearms will be sent to other countries, quite possibly to terrorism sponsoring agents. Banning stuff outright is working so well. Look at the war on drugs and prohibition.

Anyways, it's not like all the guns in this country are in dealers' hands right now. There are literally generations of firearms in this country. To rid the country of ALL of them would require some sort of authoritarian police state.

547,000 Americans die every year from cancer. There are 303,000,000 people in America. This means that only .18% of Americans die from cancer every year. Cancer must not be a big problem, then.

Sorry, I just saw this since it was bumped. You're saying guns kill a comparable number of people on COLLEGE CAMPUSES to cancer in general? That's a bold allusion. Sensationalism at it's worst, KA. I expected more .

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

Why don't you outlaw cars? We'll all be a lot safer then and you're for sure hundreds of times more likely to die from a car accident than be shot on a college campus. You act like it's a huge plague that kills many thousands of students a year. No, it's the exception not the rule. SENSATIONALISM!

Alternatively, if the kid didn't have it so easy obtaining a gun, he may have been deterred in the first place. And if we have guns in the classroom around a bunch of prideful, post-adolescent idiots there's going to be way more of a bloodbath in schools.

Alternatively, if the media didn't give attention to these kids he might not have wanted to get a gun and blow them all away. They don't need the media immortalizing them once they blow people away. They need love while they're still stable. The level of detail some of these kids put in is just crazy. Thank God they're using guns and explosives. You don't have to aim for that.

Alternatively, if the media didn't give attention to these kids he might not have wanted to get a gun and blow them all away.

Blaming it on the media is simple. Shifting the blame from the poor, emotionally troubled teen to the ruthless media is easy. However, it is nothing more than irresponsibly exculpating the perpetrator. The kid pulled the trigger; not the media. The gun was a vital part to implementing his plan; not the media. This is what we know. What his motivation behind the shooting is mere speculation.

Blaming it on the media is simple. Shifting the blame from the poor, emotionally troubled teen to the ruthless media is easy. However, it is nothing more than irresponsibly exculpating the perpetrator. The kid pulled the trigger; not the media. The gun was a vital part to implementing his plan; not the media. This is what we know. What his motivation behind the shooting is mere speculation.

Just like saying if he hadn't had the gun he would have been deterred is speculative. You can't say these things because he did have a gun and we don't know what would have happened.

It's pretty easy to speculate the continuous coverage given to these troubled youths who end it all riddling people with bullets is an incentive. These kids are martyrs to other fucked-up kids. If it hadn't been popular in the news perhaps some of these tragedies would not have happened. Just like reporting famous suicides statistically increases suicides near the time of the reporting (at least according to my psychology professor who is a published doctor.)

Am I advocating censoring the media? No. I'm for rights. I'm sorry some people have to die, but just like how I don't agree with the over zealous anti-terror measures that are taken. I don't believe taking a right away from people is the right thing to do. I don't think tylenol should be outlawed if a bunch of people kill themselves with it. After all, I don't particularly like headaches .