Carrying Guns On Campuses For Defense

[LuxOR541]

When that crazyass crashed his truck into the Luby's here in Texas and calmly walked around executing people...

Was that the one that took place in Killeen back in the eighties? If so, do you remember what year that was? We were talking about that and couldn't remember when it was.

October 16th 1991. His name was George Hennard

[LuxOR541]

Hey Scheetz

What panned out with the threat or incident at your school?

We had a kid here yesterday blow up a pipe bomb at one of our high schools. 15 year old kid stashed it in a locker and it went off during a break, No one hurt, but still......

just like the last few school shootings. One happens, and everyone starts getting ideas....

[Scheetz]

Nothing so far. They opened class back up today but I skipped it. I was not about to risk any of the bullshit. They did put out a lot of police today though. They are all over the place and probably will be through the weekend.

Heard the class I skipped only have about 1/4 of the people show up.

[Scalliwag]

When that crazyass crashed his truck into the Luby's here in Texas and calmly walked around executing people...

Was that the one that took place in Killeen back in the eighties? If so, do you remember what year that was? We were talking about that and couldn't remember when it was.

October 16th 1991. His name was George Hennard

Yep, that is the one. A lady that was there eating with her parents had left her gun in the glovebox of her car. Both of her parents were killed and she regrets not having it in her purse.
Sometimes there just are not real easy black and white answers to fix all these things. I trust myself with a gun anywhere/anytime, it's everybody else that scares the shit out of me.:0

[Scheetz]

When that crazyass crashed his truck into the Luby's here in Texas and calmly walked around executing people...

Was that the one that took place in Killeen back in the eighties? If so, do you remember what year that was? We were talking about that and couldn't remember when it was.

October 16th 1991. His name was George Hennard

Yep, that is the one. A lady that was there eating with her parents had left her gun in the glovebox of her car. Both of her parents were killed and she regrets not having it in her purse.
Sometimes there just are not real easy black and white answers to fix all these things. I trust myself with a gun anywhere/anytime, it's everybody else that scares the shit out of me.:0

That woman holds a place in my heart from the day I read her article quite some time ago. Its sad that her gun was in a locked box less than 100 yards away within her car because of our laws. I have deep respect for everything she is doing and pray her words do not fall on deaf ears. I can not imagine what she went through watching her father shot and then having her mother executed.

[kornkitten42]

well there was a place here in middle to northern florida that one of my sargents is from.

there was a guy that drove up to a beauty salon in a strip mall. He waited for his wife to come out and then opened fire. he got off 13 rounds into the salon and down the strip as his wife was running to get away. When the other innocent people heard the gun fire they instantly opened fire on his ass.


Nobody was injured except the gun man. He was killed. His wife was ok. There were 5 different types of bullets in him.
5 people ended the scenario real quick. He was down for the count before the 911 call was even finished.

2 people confessed to shooting the gunman. the investigation was closed. no charges. But he was trying to kill his wife and opened fire into a salon full of innocent women.

I'm GLAD they killed him and i'm glad those five people were packing heat or there could have been more than one casualty.

I'm not for every college student carrying a gun. I am for the fact that is you pass a mental evaluation, pass the background check from NCIC, and FCIC, and a good student, then you should be able to carry if you choose.

i'm 22 years old. I have many guns in my house. I'm going to get a ccl soon, and i'll have mine with me at all times.

[Lakemonster]

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/c...wb/wb/xp-113894

Student pleaded with Tech: Allow guns

Bradford Wiles

Wiles, of New Castle, is a graduate research assistant in the department of human development at Virginia Tech.

My fears have been realized. As a graduate student at Virginia Tech, I have been adamant about changing the university's policy forbidding students from defending themselves. Before I proceed, let me please express my deepest condolences to those who have lost family, friends and loved ones in this awful tragedy. I do not want anyone to misconstrue my pleas for reform of university policy with a disregard for the human impact of this calamity.

It is clear that we need to rethink the idea of gun prohibition. If just one person in Norris Hall had a gun to defend himself or his classmates from an armed attacker, lives could have been saved. It is difficult not to think about how I would have felt had I watched in horror as my classmates were gunned down, and me standing there without my gun, helpless. What would it be like to stare down the barrel of the gun when it was aimed at me?

Then I think about how abhorrent that scenario is. Shouldn't I be able to think about how I would draw my own gun and stop this madman from killing my classmates and me? Gun laws and policies affect law- and policy-abiding citizens. Are we really expected to think that the shooter thought, "I shouldn't go on a murderous rampage; it's against school policy?" Can't we all see how ridiculous that is?

The policies in place on Virginia Tech's campus ask that we, as students, faculty and staff, do exactly that. In August I wrote a letter to the president of Virginia Tech, Charles Steger. An excerpt reads: "The policy that forbids students who are legally licensed to carry in Virginia needs to be changed. I am qualified and capable of carrying a concealed handgun and urge you to work with me to allow my most basic right of self-defense, and eliminate entrusting my safety and the safety of my classmates to the government. This incident makes it clear that it is time that Virginia Tech and the commonwealth of Virginia let me take responsibility for my safety."

If they had made the change at that time, then perhaps things would have been different.

The fact is that we have seen where gun control gets us. Prohibiting guns on campus only creates a place where those bent on murder can inflict the most amount of harm with the least fear of armed resistance. Virginia Tech has asked that its students choose between expulsion and death. Is that a choice we need to be forced to make?

Would my wife and family, knowing how much I have written and spoken about allowing me my most basic right of self-defense on campus, feel any comfort in the policy that supposedly protects me?

Larry Hincker, associate vice president for university relations, in response to a column I wrote in August asking that the university change its policy forbidding law-abiding concealed handgun permit (CHP) holders from carrying on campus, wrote the following in The Roanoke Times: "Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

Do you still feel the same way about your policy now, Mr. Hincker? Will your faith in that policy provide comfort to any of the victims' families?

In the coming weeks and months there will be calls for gun bans and tougher restrictions on gun rights. This is only "feel-good" legislation and does nothing to prevent those who follow the law from protecting themselves. The answer is not restricting freedoms, the answer is to make would-be killers think twice because of the probability of armed resistance.

Let us try the other end of the spectrum, responsibility for our own safety. If the university community members were not subject to penalties for arming themselves, perhaps someone would have neutralized the attacker before he could kill more than 30 people. The Virginia Tech police did the best they could in responding. Responsible individuals who want to protect themselves need to have that option, without being subject to disciplinary action or termination of employment.

The devastating events on Virginia Tech's campus remind us of just how sacred and precious life is. The Virginia Tech community and the entire nation wish that the families and friends of the afflicted students find peace somehow.

We all need to come together and do what is prudent to minimize the possibility of this ever happening again.
__________________

[Scalliwag]

The dangerous part when you think about it when it comes to students with guns is this; in a situation where a student starts shooting if other students pull guns and then other students that did not see the first student that fired you could have a lot of kids shooting each other in all the confusion. A professor on the other hand is usually a little more distinct.
Another scenerio is kids get stupid at school and over-react. One guy pisses off another and what may have just been a fistfight or an argument becomes a shooting. So it's not real simple by just giving everybody guns.
I also think that laws should be tightened/changed for gun accidents. If you accidently shoot someone or the wrong person it does not need to be treated like you accidently spilt a coke.
There is a right to bear arms but to me there is not an inherent right to make mistakes that infringe on others rights and lives.
One reason I feel this way are because of cases where a gun may have conveniently killed someone on accident like in arguments. Those should be treated as murders.

[ghostofdavid]

I feel this way are because of cases where a gun may have conveniently killed someone on accident like in arguments. Those should be treated as murders.

They are treated like murders. Accidently shooting the wrong person does not give you a free pass by saying I'm sorrying. At best, you would get murder. Heck, even people who justifiably shoot someone in self defense can get charged with murder.

[Scalliwag]

I agree with that to a point but when it is found to be an accident they get off the hook with probation a lot of the time. I think it needs the same level of punishment as though it was intentional. Right now if the jury finds them "not guilty" because they feel sorry for them is bullshit. They are guilty of a gun crime.
If you have a gun in hand and you make a mistake that should be the price.



Oh, I found a vid of the lady from Luby's http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.htm...p;&&new

[Lakemonster]

Our own State is very stringent on killing or wounding innocent bystanders.

One thing we need to think about is that even if guns on campus were allowed..... only a small fraction of the students would bother. This is obviously an opinion of mine, but I firmly believe that there would be little instance of of a bunch of people pulling iron at the same time in confusion and getting into a "Mexican Standoff".

Heres a real story of armed student responders that acted unbeknownst of each others efforts.... they pulled it off. Gunman was taken alive. The mass media forgot to mention them.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=55326

VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE
Death toll limited before campus gun ban
5 years ago, shooter subdued by armed students


A deeply troubled and disgruntled foreign student runs afoul of college authorities.

He comes to the Virginia campus armed and starts shooting in one building.

But, unlike the massacre at Virginia Tech last week, the damage was contained in this incident that occurred five years ago, before the state legislature banned guns on college campuses.

Peter Odighizuwa

On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year-old student from Nigeria, walked into the Appalachian School of Law offices of Dean Anthony Sutin, 42, a former acting assistant U.S. attorney, and professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun – shooting them at close range.

Also killed in the same building was student Angela Denise Dales, 33. Three others were wounded.

As soon as the gunfire erupted, two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms. Gross, an off-duty police officer in his home state of North Carolina, got his 9mm pistol and body armor. Bridges got out his .357 Magnum.

Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students.

Gross went back to his car and got handcuffs to detain the shooter until police arrived.

Most news reports of the incident failed to mention the presence of two armed students and their role in subduing the shooter, saying only that he was tackled by bystanders.

Odighizuwa was tried for the murders and sentenced to multiple life terms in prison.

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Foreign-born student Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

A year earlier, the Virginia legislature banned all guns on campus in the interest of safety.

[Key]

Wow this is a long thread...hmm.

Here is just an article of interest by Walter Williams:

JWR

Murder at VPI

By Walter Williams

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The 32 murders at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) shocked the nation, but what are some of the steps that can be taken to reduce the probability that such a massacre will happen again? A large portion of the blame can be laid at the feet of the VPI administration and its campus security personnel, who failed to warn students, faculty and staff.


Long before the massacre, VPI administration, security and some faculty knew Cho Seung-Hui, the murderer, had mental problems. According to The New York Times, "Campus authorities were aware 17 months ago of the troubled mental state of the student. . . ." More than one professor reported his bizarre behavior. Campus security tried to have him committed involuntarily to a mental institution. There were complaints that Cho Seung-Hui made unwelcome phone calls and stalked students. Given the university's experiences with Cho, at the minimum they should have expelled him, and their failure or inability to do so is the direct cause of last week's massacre.


But there is something else we might want to look at. There's a federal law known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). As VPI's registrar reports, "Third Party Disclosures are prohibited by FERPA without the written consent of the student. Any persons other than the student are defined as Third Party, including parents, spouses, and employers." College officials are required to secure written permission from the student prior to the release of any academic record information.


That means a mother, father or spouse who might have intimate historical knowledge of a student's mental, physical or academic problems, who might be in a position to render assistance in a crisis, is prohibited from being notified of new information. Alternatively, should the family member wish to initiate an inquiry as to whether there have been any reports of mental, physical or academic problems, they are prohibited from access by FERPA. Of course, the student can give his parent written permission to have access to such information, but how likely is it that a highly disturbed student will do so?


FERPA is part of a much broader trend in our society where parental authority is being usurped. Earlier this year, San Francisco Bay Area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber introduced a bill that would prosecute parents for spanking their children. Because of widespread opposition, the assemblywoman withdrew her bill. Schools teach children sex material that many parents would deem offensive. Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued an executive order mandating that every 11- and 12-year-old girl be given Gardisil HPV vaccination as a guard against a sexually transmitted disease that can cause genital warts and even cervical cancer.


Last February, the Commonwealth of Virginia's legislature unanimously passed a law, the first of its kind in the country, that bans universities from expelling suicidal students. Such a law suggests that the Commonwealth's legislature is more concerned about the welfare of a suicidal potential murderer than the lives of his innocent victims. As such, those legislators might consider themselves in part culpable for VPI's 32 murder victims.


There is a partial parental remedy for governmental and university usurpation of parental rights through the power of the purse. Prior to writing out a check for a child's college tuition, have a legal document drawn up where the child gives his parents full and complete access to any mental, physical and academic records developed during the child's college career. While such a strategy might not be necessary for every parent, it should at least be considered by parents whose child has an unstable mental or physical history.
___________________________________________________________

One other article that addresses this issue. This is one by Thomas Sowell.

JWR

Aftermath of the 1960s?

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Someone recently said that mass shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School, are largely a phenomenon of the 1960s and afterwards. If so, these tragedies can be added to the long list of disastrous consequences of the heady notions and extravagant rhetoric of that decade.


What was there in the 1960s vision of the world that could possibly lead anyone to consider it right to shoot at individuals who had done nothing to him?


Collective guilt is one of the legacies of the 1960s that is still with us. We are still seeing a guilt trip for slavery being laid on people who never owned a slave in their lives, and who would be repelled by the very idea of owning a slave.


Back in the 1960s, it was considered Deep Stuff among the intelligentsia to say that American society — all of us collectively — were somehow responsible for the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King.


During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else's fault — society's fault. If you were poor, whether at home or in some Third World country, you were one of the "dispossessed" — even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess you of.


The urban ghetto riots that swept across the country during the 1960s were all blamed on society. This view was formalized in a much-hailed report on urban violence by a national "blue ribbon" commission headed by Governor Otto Kerner of Illinois.


President Lyndon Johnson likewise blamed urban violence on social conditions, saying: "All of us know what those conditions are: ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs."


This sweeping and heady vision made it unnecessary to stoop to anything so mundane as hard facts — which would have included the fact that urban riots struck most often and most violently when and where this collective guilt vision prevailed.

Southern cities, where at that time discrimination and poverty were more pronounced than in the rest of the country, were not nearly as often or as hard-hit as cities outside the South.


Detroit, which suffered the most deadly of all the ghetto riots of the 1960s, with 43 deaths, had an unemployment rate among blacks of 3.4 percent — which was lower than the national unemployment rate among whites.


Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley was not buying the liberal guilt trips of the time, was one of the few big Northern cities to escape the wave of riots that swept across the country in 1967.


The kinds of mass urban riots that occurred all across the country during Lyndon Johnson's administration became virtually unknown during the eight years of the Reagan administration, which projected a completely different vision of the world.


But, then as now, facts often came in a poor second to heady visions and sweeping rhetoric.


If other people are somehow responsible for whatever is lacking in your life, lashing out at random against individuals who have done nothing to you personally can sound plausible to many people.


Whether or not the latest mass killings at Virginia Tech were a result of medically verifiable insanity, there have always been insane people but there have not always been mass killings with the frequency we have seen since 1960.


Nor is gun control the magic answer, as often suggested by the same kind of people who believe in collective responsibility instead of individual responsibility.


Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun — which is easy to get illegally?


One of the many hard facts that get overlooked by those impressed by \visions and rhetoric is that mass shootings almost invariably occur in gun-free zones like schools, workplaces, or houses of worship.


When has a mass killer opened fire on a meeting of the National Rifle Association or fired on a group of hunters?


Instead of banning guns, maybe we should rethink 1960s dogmas.

[Key]

I don't like the idea of students carrying firearms to class. It sounds like and accident waiting to happen. But I am all from the profs carrying them. Even if not all profs carry them there would always be one at least in a reasonable distance so if something did go down they could get there before the cops.
When that crazyass crashed his truck into the Luby's here in Texas and calmly walked around executing people it would have been nice if someone would have put a bullet in the guys skull before he shot all of those people.

To me guns are a pandoras box that was open a long time ago. In a perfect world there would not be any. But in the real world criminals will always have access to them. That is just a sad fact of life.

We live in an imperfect world though. From an Economic standpoint we assume people are rational.

Rationality assumption: This is the assumption that persons act as if they are rational. This means that they would not intentionally make decisions that would leave them worse off.

My professor for Economics addressed the issue of teachers carrying firearms in their classes. The one problem with that is if the teacher acts out of spite or becomes angry enough with a student, etc. that gun could seem quite tempting.

I am not for further gun control. Not one bit. But you do have to weigh the benefits and costs to having guns on campus, just saying if we did. There will certainly be consequences to that too. Edited May 3, 2007 by Key

[ShishaFred]

I like how every article in Lakemoster's post always mentions foreing or foreing-born. One of the ''students'' who intervened was an off-duty cop with body armor in his car? I don't think that fits with the description of the casual student : Rushing out of instinct , but also training , to his car to get a piece of the action.

[The King]

Guns are not hard to get... its not hard to go kill someone...Stuff like this is obviously planned out, allowing studentsto carry doesn't make things like this happen, it stops it. A student is not going to be sitting in his dorm and all the sudden think, "well shit, i have a gun, lets go kill innocents". People don't randomly kill people for absolutely no reason at the spurr of the moment.

And someone was saying people get away with murder because at a conflict they say it was an accident??? I've never heard of that happening. That is murder, and they are charged with murder... the fact that these people are not allowed to have their guns, is bullshit. It's for safety, I know if i was a kid in that dorm, who was not allowed to have my gun with me, and was unable to do anything to prevent this... I'd be crushed...

[L'Oignon]

I dont think carrying more guns will solve anything at all. Here's some reasons

1) People are stupid. Arming everyone will just leave so much room for mistakes, misfires, and general idiocy that lethal weapons dont leave room to avoid.
2) We're talking about a college campus here. People love getting drunk at college. Do you want to stay in the dorm where people are allowed to get plastered and then sleep on a bed made of their gun collection?
3) Also, imagine what it'd be like there on the day of the shooting. OK, so if the RA had a gun they could apparently have stopped the shootings. Thats of course assuming that the RA can actually take him down. And then if he broke into the building and started shooting, and people learn that there's a gunman so they draw their weapons and go into the hallway. And then they look, and there's other students that have drawn their weapon and gone into the hallway. And then they dont know who is good and bad so they pull out their guns and start waiving them at each other and then somebody gets one right in the brain.

If you ask me, more people than 30 would die if they started handing out firearms at college. Thats an absolutely terrible idea. You might say "well only the responsible ones would get the guns", but then the maniac who went on the rampage bought his guns legitimately. So then you'd say "well just have stricter guidelines for giving out guns" and thus we come to the answer. Less guns.

[Lakemonster]

L'

I must admit, as much as I would like to make a sugar coated response to you reply. I cant do it.

I fear you really need to read this WHOLE thread once again.... I feel it would answer many of your points.

heres a brief retort to each of your points.

1: People can be stupid. Concealed carry licence holders have to attend a class and DEMONSTRATE the the safe use of a firearm in live fire exercizes that tends to really cull out the actual "stupid people".

2. A person off a campus can get lit up and do the same thing. Once again, as has been pointed out in this thread that concealed licensce holders are held to a great level of responsibility above and beyond the average joe. The gun collection for a bed statement is shallow. Its not even realistic.

3. Re-read page 2. I posted a a news report of a situation simular to what you describe... minus the 30 gunweilding students. It would never come to such rediculous numbers.

Your final statement is not well thought out. Taking guns out of legitimate hands only leaves those who wish to harm or exploit the law in possession of the said classification of weapon. The abscense of guns have not been a deterent for mass killings. The 9/11 highjackers killed thousands weilding only box cutter. A cult in Japan killed a couple score on a train using samurai swords and poison gas.

Sorry. guns arent the problem for mass killings. But they can stop them just the same.

Please read the thread all the way through. Edited May 14, 2007 by Lakemonster

[The King]

Thanks LakeMonster... i wanted to say the same thing

Were not talking about handing out handguns to every student...were talking about how they take the right to bear arms away on campus

[L'Oignon]

L'

I must admit, as much as I would like to make a sugar coated response to you reply. I cant do it.

I fear you really need to read this WHOLE thread once again.... I feel it would answer many of your points.

heres a brief retort to each of your points.

1: People can be stupid. Concealed carry licence holders have to attend a class and DEMONSTRATE the the safe use of a firearm in live fire exercizes that tends to really cull out the actual "stupid people".

This seems like a rather moot point. The kids who did the columbine shooting seemed like upstanding citizens to their probation officers and psychiatrists (who they met after the two committed a non-psychotic attempt to break into a van) who said they'd succeed in life. They didnt have any record before that attempt, nor did they seem like they'd be psychopaths. Psychopathic often tend to appear perfectly normal and sane. I dont think it'd be hard for a psycho with no record to get a license for a concealed weapon.
Besides, learning about safety only matters to people who care about learning about safety. Tell a person a million times to buckle up their seatbelt, and they probably wont do it, but they'll sure as hell buckle up on the drivers test so they can get their license. Go through the motions to pass the test and reap the rewards.

2. A person off a campus can get lit up and do the same thing. Once again, as has been pointed out in this thread that concealed licensce holders are held to a great level of responsibility above and beyond the average joe. The gun collection for a bed statement is shallow. Its not even realistic.

Ya, its an exaggerated example, but you've got to think about the college landscape. There's alot of hotheaded idiots running around. Some people get in a heated argument, one person pulls out his gun to get the last word, another pops him one because he's pulled a gun.

3. Re-read page 2. I posted a a news report of a situation simular to what you describe... minus the 30 gunweilding students. It would never come to such rediculous numbers.

I'd say that's a rather extreme and atypical example because one of the students was a bloody off-duty cop. He would be unusually cool and collected during the whole situation because its his job and he's had extensive training in countless simulations. Who is to say that another person with bad nerves in the same situation wouldnt turn a corner, get startled by somebody, and shoot them by accident? Regardless of how many of these live-fire exercises they make you do before getting a concealed weapon, the real thing is nothing like a drill.
If anything, that story just says that there should be more armed guards on campus. It showed that a trained professional (key word there) actually knows how to handle the situation.

edit: also, it would never have come to such a ridiculous number if they closed the school down after they found that a student had been murdered. We shouldnt be asking where the guns were, we should be asking why the shooter still had a target range.

Your final statement is not well thought out. Taking guns out of legitimate hands only leaves those who wish to harm or exploit the law in possession of the said classification of weapon. The abscense of guns have not been a deterent for mass killings. The 9/11 highjackers killed thousands weilding only box cutter. A cult in Japan killed a couple score on a train using samurai swords and poison gas.

Sorry. guns arent the problem for mass killings. But they can stop them just the same.

Please read the thread all the way through.

Thats not a terribly well thought out statement either. So if everyone had weapons always there'd never be any problems ever? Sure, maybe mass killings might get smaller, but the number of small incidents would fly through the roof.

Its the old "arm everybody" idea thats screwed the world over so many times. Nobel invented modern explosives because he thought that the sheer power would scare people away from ever having another war. All that got us was a phenomenally high body count during the first world war. So then during the second world war they decide that they're going to make the mother of all explosives so that nobody will fight wars again, but now its pretty much decided that the a-bomb is the most likely demise of us all. Its very hard to argue that turning people into better killing machines will somehow lower violence.

edit: I should also admit that I didnt actually read the thread when I made the first post. After reading the OP I just had to feverishly throw something down. Sorry about that. Edited May 14, 2007 by L'Oignon

[Lakemonster]

Never once did I say we should "arm everyone".

[insidius]

People need to realize that putting MORE guns out there is not going to help the problem.

Gee, I wonder if there's a link between people not having guns and NOT shooting people, and people having guns and shooting people?

We need better gun laws, not more people with guns.

Period.

Screw the right to bear arms, how about the right to live?

And yes, I'm ex-military if there's any question as to my "patriotism" and any other such contrivances.

[The King]

Its not hard to get a gun, the people who commit gun crimes don't care about breaking the gun on campus rule... Then you have the good kids, who are scared of bringing their gun because of the consequences of breaking the rule...they have no intention of commiting a crime, they want it for safety. But they don't bring it, because their good people who follow the rules. These gun rules just stop the people who follow the rules from carrying... the dangerous people who have bad intentions obviously dont care about that rule, so you end up with only the dangerous people with guns

[L'Oignon]

Its not hard to get a gun, the people who commit gun crimes don't care about breaking the gun on campus rule... Then you have the good kids, who are scared of bringing their gun because of the consequences of breaking the rule...they have no intention of commiting a crime, they want it for safety. But they don't bring it, because their good people who follow the rules. These gun rules just stop the people who follow the rules from carrying... the dangerous people who have bad intentions obviously dont care about that rule, so you end up with only the dangerous people with guns

But then you have the people who want to go on a rampage, have no money and no ability to get a gun. but then they remember that the prof is packing, and he keeps it in his desk or in his briefcase. Steal that, and away we go.
The door swings both ways man.

[ghostofdavid]

You completely invalided anything you said by saying you didn't read the entire thread. You voiced your opinion and convinced no one.

[The King]

Its not hard to get a gun, the people who commit gun crimes don't care about breaking the gun on campus rule... Then you have the good kids, who are scared of bringing their gun because of the consequences of breaking the rule...they have no intention of commiting a crime, they want it for safety. But they don't bring it, because their good people who follow the rules. These gun rules just stop the people who follow the rules from carrying... the dangerous people who have bad intentions obviously dont care about that rule, so you end up with only the dangerous people with guns

But then you have the people who want to go on a rampage, have no money and no ability to get a gun. but then they remember that the prof is packing, and he keeps it in his desk or in his briefcase. Steal that, and away we go.
The door swings both ways man.

Sorry but if a perosn is wanting to go on a rampage that bad, they can get a gun from other places than on campus.... You'll never stop the lunatics from trying, but you can prevent tragedies like this by not leaving people so vulnerable