Students Want Chance to Defend Themselves

[Redwing634]

cant forget that this would prevent many shootings in the future as psycho gunmen will be less willing to go into an establishment where the odds are even instead of in his favor

a person intent on a bloodbath wont go into a police station and open fire; he'll probably get one shot off before hes dropped. He'll go to a place where he faces dozens or hundreds of defenseless victims.

Very interesting article written by Fred D. Thompson former senator of TN:

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke, and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

[OnePimpTiger]

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

Most of that article was stuff I've heard over and over again, but this paragraph really stood out to me. Even after having read a lot of pro- and anti-gun rhetoric over the years, that sentiment still made me think.

[ensbergcollector]

redwing - great article by thompson. Now does that sound like a crazy man wanting to kill people or a person who sees the benefit.

onepimp - amen

those opposed to the idea - as long as you think of 21+ year olds who have passed a training course and had a background check as KIDS, then you will never understand the other point of view. I do see where you are coming from and disagree.


Yanks - how many states have concealed handgun laws? 40 How many states have had instances of a "war" breaking out? 0



bondsaway - have you ever shot an AK-47? I assure you I am more accurate with a 25 then anyone would be with an AK. And I will tell you this, if someone comes into class with an AK-47, I pray that someone in the room has a gun to defend everyone else.

[Yanksfan396]

Do you mean to tell me that 0? States have had a massacre where both parties have guns? Wow... I get Bs in my history courses, and even I know how laughable that presumption is.

I pose this question to those who favor students to carry guns on campus freely:

Which university did you attend and how crowded was it?


Now picture that entire crowd carrying guns... doesn't seem very safe to me.

[Redwing634]

Do you mean to tell me that 0? States have had a massacre where both parties have guns? Wow... I get Bs in my history courses, and even I know how laughable that presumption is.

I pose this question to those who favor students to carry guns on campus freely:

Which university did you attend and how crowded was it?


Now picture that entire crowd carrying guns... doesn't seem very safe to me.

I'm currently in a "crowded" universtity and I would feel safer if I knew there was some "last line of defense" if a deranged person walked into my building with the intent of slaughtering dozens of people. It's actually a pretty unsafe feeling knowing that if someone were to get into your building, youd have to hope campus safety/police could get there before the gunman kills "too many" people (realistically though, by that time dozens of people would have already been shot).

[OnePimpTiger]

That's the whole point of the debate, yes we would feeler safer.

Let me ask you this, hypothetically of course. If you're a criminal and you're looking to rob a house and have narrowed it down to 2, are you going to go into one where you know there isn't a gun or one where there might be a gun.

A different situation: You're the dictator of a nation. If you're planning on invading a country, would you invade the one to your east that has nukes or the one to your west that doesn't.

It's a deterrent. Not only does it give you a way to stop a bad situation, but it makes people think twice about doing it in the first place.

So yes, I would feel safer at a university where an incident like that is less likely to happen, but if it does, I have an opportunity to do something about it.

[Yanksfan396]

Here's the catch:

Nearly every single campus shooter wants to, in the end, die. The robber and the dictator don't want to fail. Now, I agree that someone has to subdue him. He'll kill 30 people or more before the police get there, of course. That leaves either security guards or students to take him out. I'll go with the former.

While we're talking hypotheticals:

Would you rather have the passengers aboard your plane or trained flight attendants carrying guns?

[OnePimpTiger]

Nearly every single campus shooter wants to, in the end, die. The robber and the dictator don't want to fail. Now, I agree that someone has to subdue him. He'll kill 30 people or more before the police get there, of course. That leaves either security guards or students to take him out. I'll go with the former.

That's true, but most of them want to take out as many people as possible before they do. So you're right, it's not as much of a deterrent, but I think it would still help. And I do think security guards would help, but you would have to hire a ton of guards to effectively cover the whole campus.

Would you rather have the passengers aboard your plane or trained flight attendants carrying guns?

I would be fine either way with that. In my experience, the people who go through the trouble of getting a permit to carry are responsible people who have been around guns their whole lives and very well trained and practiced in using them. The people who might use it for a crime or just like to play around with guns don't bother. That's one of the reasons I'm for right to carry laws. If I thought criminals, crazies, and irresponsible people were the ones going out to get the permits, I would have a problem with that.

[ensbergcollector]

Do you mean to tell me that 0? States have had a massacre where both parties have guns? Wow... I get Bs in my history courses, and even I know how laughable that presumption is.

I pose this question to those who favor students to carry guns on campus freely:

Which university did you attend and how crowded was it?


Now picture that entire crowd carrying guns... doesn't seem very safe to me.

glad I could provide some laughs. You talked about war breaking out. How many of the massacres in this country have happened because both sides had guns? none.
every school shooting, every mall shooting. the only deaths were caused by the original gunman

[mintman2]

I think the fundamental problem here is not whether or not kids should have guns, but more so, why are children taught to curl up in a fetal ball any time someone is threatening them? Instead of giving kids guns, teach them to stand up and fight.

I haven't read all the comments in this thread but it doesn't matter, haybierman summed it up pretty well. Crap like "just give them your wallet, money can be replaced" is destroying us. How about telling people "If someone tries to hurt you or steal from you, you IMMEDIATELY strike out at them" ? Maybe the "bad guys" would be more scared than us fetal curling woosies. Just ask a police officer how they're trained. At the very first indication of an immenint threat they REACT WITH FORCE, and it's VERY effective.


On the issue of guns for citizens (students or not)..........it's been proven time and time again, when you take guns away from the regular citizenry crime goes up, but wherever there is a well armed general population, that is allowed to defend themselves, crime goes down.


I know it's an emotional issue but think about it. The arguement is that we don't want guns on college campuses, but if something happens then we make phone call to people that do have guns. Give qualified (pass a gun proficiency test), law abiding citizens, the ability to stop this kind of attrocicty without having to wait 15 minutes for the "police" to show up.