The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: deadwoods

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: deadwoods

The third worries me. Is the social fabric in the US so unstable that the level of gun ownership needs to be as high? Is America so dangerous to innocent people? I've spent much time in the US over the last ten years and have never felt threatened enough to feel I needed a gun; perhaps I've been lucky enough to avoid the dangerous parts. I sincerely hope that America is not generally that dangerous a place to live, cos' if it is, it's about time someone spent time addressing the issues at home (rather than spending all the budget invading foreign countries).

quote>

No, but every country has people in it that are willing to flout the law to get what they want, and that's what the guns are for - in case they try it on you.quote>

But that's my point. Every country has these people. In most western countries (Australia, Canada, UK, Europe) the risk to ordinary folks from these people is so low that average folks don't need guns. It's only in America that the risk of deadly home invasion is so high. That's the problem.quote>

And also in the US, statistically speaking, the average person isn't going to have their home invaded.  Doesn't mean that we don't believe in being prepared though.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Well, it's unfortunate, but living in America I know the sad truth.  You see more cases about kids playing around and pulling the trigger...as well, if you watch the news or everyone's favorite show Cops, you'll see more and more things about people using their guns to shoot people over domestic disputes and attack the police.  I actually heard somewhere that it's way more dangerous to own a gun in your home than it is not to have one at all...reason being what I said before.

This just peaked my interest because me and a few friends did a school project on the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

[Meg 368]

GMU Shooting Club Makes Field Trip To Gun Range

FAIRFAX, Va. -- Students and staff from George Mason University took a field trip to Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly Monday in order to learn proper and safe gun handling.

The students argue the campus would be safer if concealed firearms are permitted, so they went to a gun range to prove their point, News4's Darcy Spencer reported.

About a dozen GMU students from the College Republicans participated. They were paired with NRA-certified firearms instructors and taught how to safely handle guns.Following the Virginia Tech massacre, some gun advocates argued that students should be allowed to arm themselves against would be attackers.GMU bans all guns on campus. University officials said they don't plan on lifting the campus gun ban.

Participants in Monday's field trip said they'll continue to fight to have the policy changed.Participants were given complimentary memberships in GMU's new shooting club, which is planning for a shooting range on campus.quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

Where I got to school (Manhattan College), the security guards are unarmed, and weapons are not permitted anywhere on campus.

And I gotta admit, the security guards being unarmed doesn't sit right with me. If someone showed up with a gun and violent intent security wouldn't be very capable of stopping them.

As for students being allowed to carry guns on campus.... well, that's another story and you have to go on a campus by campus basis with it. Urban campuses really aren't well suited to such things, so I wouldn't like to see my school let students carry guns, but if the college is in a more suburban or rural setting and is more spread out, not in the middle of a densely populated area, then letting students carry guns starts to sound appealing- I would have the caveat, though, that the privilege be permanently denied to any student who has ever gotten in trouble for something at the school- whether it be cheating on a test, getting written up for being drunk, whatever. Limit it to responsible students, in other words. Perhaps not allow it of freshman, either.

And obviously they'd need an actual government-issue license to own/carry a gun, too.

Although admittedly, knowing then who is and isn't allowed to carry a gun becomes a logistical issue- but not an impossible one to solve. Just have their student ID say whether or not they're allowed, for instance.

GMU is an has several campuses. The Arlington Campus is somewhat urban, so it's pushing it. The others, however, are more suburban- so it seems reasonable to me to allow students to carry firearms there.

[deadwoods 542]

I still think the high-level of gun ownership, across the entire population, is bizarre.

We had some gang-related violence in Sydney yesterday where five kids broke into a school (they weren't students) and were armed with baseball bats, machetes, and one had a Samurai sword (real?). There were some injuries but no fatalities. Now if this had happened in the US, all offenders would have been armed with weapons (possibly semi-automatic weapons) and there would have been multiple casualties. If some of the students had been armed as well, there probably would have been death or injury from collateral damage (shooting accurately/safely on a range does not equal shooting back when being shot at; I was in the military for 15yrs).

Do I need to spell out the difference here? US = high gun ownership = many deaths in this type of situation. Australia = low gun ownership = no deaths in this situation. There are two differences here:

1. Guns aren't that easy to get; yes the serious crims can get them, but not you're average wannabe gang member

2. Using guns in crime is a very serious matter; serious enough to deter all except the hardened crims (like the underworld figures).

You need to reduce the number of guns that people can easily get if you are serious about lowering the innocent deaths.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Where I got to school (Manhattan College), the security guards are unarmed, and weapons are not permitted anywhere on campus.

And I gotta admit, the security guards being unarmed doesn't sit right with me. If someone showed up with a gun and violent intent security wouldn't be very capable of stopping them.quote>

Although my campus is in an urban area, the police (we have security guards and a full-fledged dedicated police force) are armed, and extensively so.  My dorm building is a 24-hour always open facility.  It's a pretty good feeling to know that if anything happens, a small army will be there in a matter of a few minutes.

Originally posted by: deadwoods

Do I need to spell out the difference here? US = high gun ownership = many deaths in this type of situation. Australia = low gun ownership = no deaths in this situation. There are two differences here:

1. Guns aren't that easy to get; yes the serious crims can get them, but not you're average wannabe gang member

2. Using guns in crime is a very serious matter; serious enough to deter all except the hardened crims (like the underworld figures).

You need to reduce the number of guns that people can easily get if you are serious about lowering the innocent deaths.quote>

You missed something though.  I don't know what it's like in Australia, but the US has a very extensive black market from the Prohibition era.  Alcohol isn't the commodity of choice, but we could ban guns entirely, and turn around and pick them up from the black market in a month or less.  I live in the "bad part of town" so to speak - I could get anything from PCP to bomb materials to Cuban cigars with hardly any looking.

What really needs to be done first is to find a successful way to get the black market under control.  After that's done, you can work on disarming the populace (if that was actually a goal you could get the American public as a whole to agree to).

[xxbydesign 1]

Voar Tok: every country has people in it that are willing to flout the law to get what they want, and that's what the guns are for - in case they try it on you.

deadwoods: But that's my point. Every country has these people. In most western countries (Australia, Canada, UK, Europe) the risk to ordinary folks from these people is so low that average folks don't need guns. It's only in America that the risk of deadly home invasion is so high. That's the problem.

Voar Tok: And also in the US, statistically speaking, the average person isn't going to have their home invaded.  Doesn't mean that we don't believe in being prepared though.quote>

Voar Tok, you admit that home invasion is just as unlikely in the United States as in other western countries, such as Australia, Canada, UK, and the rest of Europe.  And yet you defend the right for average people, who are not at threat from home invasion as previously agreed, to purchase weapons as 'preparation.'  Preparation for home invasion should not be violent armament;  It should be insurance coverage, good locks, perhaps even the expense of a security system, but above all personal fortitude to fall back on if the unlikely occurs.  

The idealized image of preparation for the unexpected and unlikely seems to me to resemble the highly paramilitaristic dogma of 20th centry youth organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of both England and America, which were(and are), lets be honest, little more than institutions to prepare a nation's children in the ways of regimented dicipline typical of military service.  These were organizations whose purposes coincided subliminally, or otherwise quite directly, as was the case with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with issues concerning national security.  The strucutre of these organizations is to get youths accustomed to orders, rank, and procedure, thereby instilling the value of dicipline.  Is it any surprise, then, that the motto of the Boy Scouts of America is "Be Prepared"?  These kids were trained to be soldiers.

But what of the average Amercian?  If it is the diciplined participants of the Boy Scouts who are expected to 'be prepared', what of the average man wanting to protect his home and family?  Should he, undicpiplined and untrained in thier use, maitenance, and proper storage, purchased a firearm to prepare himslef for that unlikely scenario?  In his strive to 'be prepared', what cost is the average American going to pay?  Sure, you may protect your money, accuired objects, or even preserve a feeling of security, but that gun might ultimately cost the life of another human being, more than likely an innocent one.  And at that point, all that was hoped to be protected by that gun is destroyed, outweighed by the deficit of a human life lost senselessly, which perpetuates itself into a loss of security for entire communities and eveuntally the nation as a whole, which is why we find ourselves in the conversation.  All to 'be prepared'.

No, I do not belive the average American has a right to own a gun.  I do not belive that the aquisition of firearms as personal defense is a form of preparation; it is paranoia.

I believe the black market on guns is a large part of the problem, and is indellibly linked to other criminal markets, perhaps most prominently the drug trade and associated warfare.  And I do not belive that mear gun control will solve the issue; as long as these markets exist there will be death, and these markets will exist as long as we have

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: xxbydesign

Voar Tok: every country has people in it that are willing to flout the law to get what they want, and that's what the guns are for - in case they try it on you.

deadwoods: But that's my point. Every country has these people. In most western countries (Australia, Canada, UK, Europe) the risk to ordinary folks from these people is so low that average folks don't need guns. It's only in America that the risk of deadly home invasion is so high. That's the problem.quote>

Voar Tok: And also in the US, statistically speaking, the average person isn't going to have their home invaded.  Doesn't mean that we don't believe in being prepared though.quote>

Voar Tok, you admit that home invasion is just as unlikely in the United States as in other western countries, such as Australia, Canada, UK, and the rest of Europe.  And yet you defend the right for average people, who are not at threat from home invasion as previously agreed, to purchase weapons as 'preparation.'  Preparation for home invasion should not be violent armament;  It should be insurance coveragequote>

Good for material loss - not if they came to kill you.

good locksquote>

There is no such thing as a "good lock."  A door with a deadbolt on it is hardly any more resistant to being kicked in than if it just had the standard lock.  The average house lock is also incredibly susceptible to a process called "bumping."  Take a bump key, a small object to hit it with, and the security of the vast majority of homes can be compromised in a matter of seconds.

perhaps even the expense of a security systemquote>

That's a good thing to have, but it can't actually do anything other than alert the police, and you're powerless to do anything until such time as they arrive, and if you live in a big city, the likelihood that they'll arrive in time is very slim.  In the city of Houston, the average response time to a police emergency can be up to eighteen minutes.  In Saint Louis, over twenty minutes.  By this point, whatever the criminal came to do is already done.

but above all personal fortitude to fall back on if the unlikely occurs.quote>

I know a cop that follows that philosophy.  But even he admits that personal fortitude without some sort of weapon is pretty worthless if they want to do you harm.

The idealized image of preparation for the unexpected and unlikely seems to me to resemble the highly paramilitaristic dogma of 20th centry youth organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of both England and America, which were(and are), lets be honest, little more than institutions to prepare a nation's children in the ways of regimented dicipline typical of military service.  These were organizations whose purposes coincided subliminally, or otherwise quite directly, as was the case with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, with issues concerning national security.  The strucutre of these organizations is to get youths accustomed to orders, rank, and procedure, thereby instilling the value of dicipline.  Is it any surprise, then, that the motto of the Boy Scouts of America is "Be Prepared"?  These kids were trained to be soldiers.quote>

Well, my uncle was in the boy scouts and would disagree with that, but I digress.

[saltandsauce 0]

the council installed doors that only open outwards so people would stop using the close as a urinal .the doors can't be kicked in and can take some serious hammer action beleive me i've tried

[xxbydesign 1]

 Preparation for home invasion should not be violent armament;  It should be insurance coverage...

Good for material loss - not if they came to kill you.

...good locks...

There is no such thing as a "good lock."  A door with a deadbolt on it is hardly any more resistant to being kicked in than if it just had the standard lock.  The average house lock is also incredibly susceptible to a process called "bumping."  Take a bump key, a small object to hit it with, and the security of the vast majority of homes can be compromised in a matter of seconds.

...perhaps even the expense of a security system...

That's a good thing to have, but it can't actually do anything other than alert the police, and you're powerless to do anything until such time as they arrive, and if you live in a big city, the likelihood that they'll arrive in time is very slim.  In the city of Houston, the average response time to a police emergency can be up to eighteen minutes.  In Saint Louis, over twenty minutes.  By this point, whatever the criminal came to do is already done.

but above all personal fortitude to fall back on if the unlikely occurs.

I know a cop that follows that philosophy.  But even he admits that personal fortitude without some sort of weapon is pretty worthless if they want to do you harm. quote>

By elaborating on the inadequacies of the listed alternatives to firearms, the point of my list of preparations becomes muddled, though perhaps I did not make the purpose of the list clear enough.  So i will elaborate on the true nature of the list of preparations is provided:

  

If a burgler wants what you have in your house, he or she has in all likelyhood singled your house out on some form of veunerablity, which means that you WILL be robbed.  No questions asked.  No matter your lock, no matter the security system; I agree full heartedly with you that the average house lock will not keep out a determined burgler, and a security system does little physicaly, but emotionally the expense may put one at ease.  In this case, the lock and security system are not meant to keep the burlger out at all, just to make you feel better.  The insurance coverage is in place for the loss of material goods, which, again, if your house is singled out, WILL happen, and your insurance is there for you to fall back on.  The personal fortitude has absolutely nothing to do with actually resisting a burglury attempt; personal fortitude in this case is in reference to strength of spirit to overcome the setback of having your belongings plundered.

After those facts, it is important to note that all the prepatory actions I listed were non-violent.  That is the point of the list; these are non-violent actions that put one at ease and allow them to recover after an incident without injury or loss of life.

They are not designed to resist the act of burglary in any forcefull manner.  As another point, the likelyhood that the burgler will attempt to rob your home WHILE you are present is slim to none; if your house has been singled out, it also means it has been surveyed, which means by now the burgler knows when the house is empty and will pick that time as the most opportune.  In the Discovery Channel show 'It takes a Theif', where a former house burgler helps homeowners prevent invasion by examining the home's current safety precautions, note that all perscriptions to the security of a home do not include instructions for resistance.  These security features are mearly to reduce the likelyhood of a burgler selecting your house as a target, not to physically and even violently resist the process of burglary.

I think we need to make quite clear what s

[Voar Tok 4]

I'll just quote what you said to make this post shorter.

Originally posted by: xxbydesign

By elaborating on the inadequacies of the listed alternatives to firearms, the point of my list of preparations becomes muddled, though perhaps I did not make the purpose of the list clear enough.  So i will elaborate on the true nature of the list of preparations is provided:

  

If a burgler wants what you have in your house, he or she has in all likelyhood singled your house out on some form of veunerablity, which means that you WILL be robbed.quote>

You mentioned the show "It Takes a Thief" and from that show, I'll point a few things out.  Jon never picks a house according to it's vulnerability.  He picks them according to ones that he thinks looks good.  Both of those guys were former thieves.  Both of them pick houses the same way.  The point being, a thief isn't going to pick a house just because it looks like it's easy to rob.  They're going to pick houses that they think they want something from, and worry about how easy it is to rob afterwards.

They are not designed to resist the act of burglary in any forcefull manner.  As another point, the likelyhood that the burgler will attempt to rob your home WHILE you are present is slim to nonequote>

Oh no, the odds that they'll rob you while you're there is quite high.  It's been estimated that as much as 70% of house robberies take place while the residents are there.  Heck, again to mention the "It Takes A Thief" show, they robbed a lady while she was still in her office, with him walking by only twenty feet from her and she never even knew it.  Why did they do that?  To prove just how easy it is to rob someone while they're still in their house.

In the Discovery Channel show 'It takes a Theif', where a former house burgler helps homeowners prevent invasion by examining the home's current safety precautions, note that all perscriptions to the security of a home do not include instructions for resistance.  These security features are mearly to reduce the likelyhood of a burgler selecting your house as a target, not to physically and even violently resist the process of burglary.quote>

Naturally, they wouldn't hand them a .350 Magnum and tell them to blow the guy's head off if he gets in range - bad for TV.  I'm not saying that they would even if they weren't on TV.  Stated reason - it's better to not resist the thief, especially if he's armed.  However, one of the residents asked Jon about this, and he had to admit that the number one thing he feared back when he was still robbing people's houses was whether the residents were armed.

I think we need to make quite clear what scenario it is for which we are preparing.  You reverence several times the idea that they are

coming to kill youquote>

or

they want to do you harmquote>

;  an interrupted burglary situation and a premeditated attack on a person or family are two very different scenarios, with two very different aims.  The burglary is for ill-got capital gain, wherease the premeditated attack is not about material possessions, but about the infliction of physical and emotional damage.  For which situation are we preparing?, because my response will have to be dependent on the situation.quote>

[Duke87 1,070]

It's worth noting that some locations are more prone to burglary/robbery than others. A clerk behind the counter at a gas station or convenience store near a highway is quite justified in having a gun, even a semi-automatic one. Those kinds of places are like candy to burglars- easy to hold up and get a lot of dough, and then easy to quickly get away.  If the clerk has a gun concealed under the counter, he can fight back and stop that robbery. Not exactly ideal, but it works. On the other hand, if he makes it well known that he has a gun, he makes his store safer without having to use it, since a burglar will think twice about attempting a robbery there if they know there's someone there who can shoot them.

In this case, the gun acts as a deterrent- the threat of having it shot is how it does its job. If the time comes that someone actually has to shoot it, its job has failed.

Now, in terms of home defense, there are two possibilities: someone who's looking to cause you or someone who lives with you physical harm, and someone who's looking to steal stuff from your house.

Now, obviously, in the former case, you need to be able to defend yourself, and without a gun the odds are against you. In the latter case, you do often hear "well, that's what insurance is for", but the fact of the matter is that in any house there are things a burglar can steal which insurance can't replace. Family heirlooms, for instance. Files on a computer could be another. That painting your daughter made in art class would be yet another. You get the idea. There's also the issue of the burglar stealing things with which he can do further harm. If he steals sensitive documents from a file cabinet, for instance, it potentially enables identity theft or blackmail. This is especially a problem if the sensitive information belongs to other people. For instance, if you're a doctor and you have patient's medical documents sitting around. Or a lawyer who has other people's legal documents around. Or even worse, someone in the government who has documents that contain classified information.

You can say "keep those things locked up", sure, but locks can be picked or simply broken, and if you leave something out because you're working on it, the lock wont protect it. Not to mention that if someone's home the burglar can force them to unlock it and hand them the contents at gunpoint. If they have a gun, they can shoot the burglar instead (and would be perfectly justified in doing so). If they don't, they're SOL- they either hand over the stuff or "go down with the ship" and get themselves killed.

In a perfect world, there would be no guns. This is not a perfect world, this is the real world. We can't exactly go back in time and prevent guns from being invented, nor can we uninvent them. Pandora's box was thrown wide open long ago on this one. There will always be guns whether they're legal or not, and as such we're better off learning to live with them rather than futilely attempting to eradicate them.

I know people like to dream of a utopia where everyone lives in peace and there is no violence or reason for weapons, but that idea is, well, utopian.

[xxbydesign 1]

Jon never picks a house according to it's vulnerability.  He picks them according to ones that he thinks looks good.  Both of those guys were former thieves.  Both of them pick houses the same way.  The point being, a thief isn't going to pick a house just because it looks like it's easy to rob.  They're going to pick houses that they think they want something from, and worry about how easy it is to rob afterwards.quote>

I would pick the good houses, too, but I would think the combination of vunerable and valuable is more enticing.

It's been estimated that as much as 70% of house robberies take place while the residents are therequote>

.
Wow.  I did not know that, and that fact actually surprises me.  Isn't that almost asking for trouble?  Much too bold...

One of the things I've said in this thread is that owning a gun was a method of preparation for self-defense.  Self-defense is legally defined as fighting back when you feel that your life is in danger.  If the guy just came to take your TV, he didn't come to kill you.  Doesn't mean he won't try it if you stumble into your living room at 3 AM to find out what the racket is.  The point of the gun is to be prepared in the event that he does try to kill you.quote>

And the catch-22 rears its head, as is to be expected in a serious discussion of this issue. No one will deny the right to self defense.  I just believe that having a gun is a greater threat to your safety and the safety of those around you when it is intended to be used as defense in a high-stress situation.  Again, if a theif is eoncountered, as you agreed, its best not to resist the theif.

My uncle saw the boy scouts as something he wasn't really interested in and didn't quite see the point in it.  Now, with that said, he still follows the philosophy that there's nothing wrong with owning a gun for self-defense.quote>

I don't see the connection between owning a gun and the Boy Scouts; to my knowlege I do not know if the BSA advocates gun ownership.  I fear I've taken things a little off topic on this point.  My intention was to conncet the concept of 'being prepared' to the paramilitaristic undertones of the Boy Scouts, therby attempting to illustrate an undercurrent cultural belief of the United States that argues being prepared means being armed.

Again, I don't think EVERYONE should be able to get one.  That should be limited to people who are mentally sound, a clean criminal record, and have passed instruction in how to operate, care for, and store a gun.quote>

Humans make mistakes, and logistics and beurocracy can slow things down.  Gun manufacturers out to make a profit do not want their sales slowed by government red tape.  I can imagine that even the gun lobby would oppose this sensible measure.  It is a comfort that we can all recognize that changes are necessary to the current systems; what is important is that we can make sure that average citizens benefit more than buisnesses that stand to loose from tighter gun control.
There are also loopholes, such as if a man who is mentaly sound becomes unsound; what safety features could be in place, and how much more complicated and expensive will the system become?  Should there be regular inspections that owners are following the rules concerning proper handling, use, and storage of thier firearms?  The logistics seem to swell beyond applicable limits, and I can imagine more interesets may turn to the black market, which is also a major issue in the continuing saga of gun control in the US.

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: Duke87 ...In a perfect world, there would be no guns. This is not a perfect world, this is the real world. We can't exactly go back in time and prevent guns from being invented, nor can we uninvent them. Pandora's box was thrown wide open long ago on this one. There will always be guns whether they're legal or not, and as such we're better off learning to live with them rather than futilely attempting to eradicate them.

I know people like to dream of a utopia where everyone lives in peace and there is no violence or reason for weapons, but that idea is, well, utopian.

quote>

But that's the thing, it's not utopian. Many first-world western countries do live without the high rate of gun ownership and gun deaths. Thus my example from the gang violence in Australia above. You (the US) could, if it wanted, be like Canada, Australia and much of Europe, but the American culture needs to change, and going by many of the comments in this thread, many do not want to. As has been mentioned, it's a bit like alocoholism, you can't fix the problem until you admit there is a problem, and many can't see that there is a problem (whilst many from outside can, so many hide behind the "oh it's those foreigners having a go at our way of life" excuse). It's kind of depressing knowing that this is the society being handed on to the next generation.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: xxbydesign

It's been estimated that as much as 70% of house robberies take place while the residents are therequote>

.

Wow.  I did not know that, and that fact actually surprises me.  Isn't that almost asking for trouble?  Much too bold...quote>

Most thieves really don't care about that.  Yes, it's asking for trouble, but most of them don't particularly care about it.

One of the things I've said in this thread is that owning a gun was a method of preparation for self-defense.  Self-defense is legally defined as fighting back when you feel that your life is in danger.  If the guy just came to take your TV, he didn't come to kill you.  Doesn't mean he won't try it if you stumble into your living room at 3 AM to find out what the racket is.  The point of the gun is to be prepared in the event that he does try to kill you.quote>

And the catch-22 rears its head, as is to be expected in a serious discussion of this issue. No one will deny the right to self defense.  I just believe that having a gun is a greater threat to your safety and the safety of those around you when it is intended to be used as defense in a high-stress situation.  Again, if a theif is eoncountered, as you agreed, its best not to resist the theif.quote>

No, I didn't agree to that - I simply reiterated what they said on the show.  Lots of times, confrontation is inevitable when the homeowners are there.  (It's a natural instinct to investigate any weird noises or other such things).

Again, I don't think EVERYONE should be able to get one.  That should be limited to people who are mentally sound, a clean criminal record, and have passed instruction in how to operate, care for, and store a gun.quote>

Humans make mistakes, and logistics and beurocracy can slow things down.  Gun manufacturers out to make a profit do not want their sales slowed by government red tape.  I can imagine that even the gun lobby would oppose this sensible measure.  It is a comfort that we can all recognize that changes are necessary to the current systems; what is important is that we can make sure that average citizens benefit more than buisnesses that stand to loose from tighter gun control.

There are also loopholes, such as if a man who is mentaly sound becomes unsound; what safety features could be in place, and how much more complicated and expensive will the system become?  Should there be regular inspections that owners are following the rules concerning proper handling, use, and storage of thier firearms?  The logistics seem to swell beyond applicable limits, and I can imagine more interesets may turn to the black market, which is also a major issue in the continuing saga of gun control in the US.quote>

It wouldn't be unreasonable to have yearly checks to make sure that you're qualified to own a gun.  People do it for their cars each year.  I don't see why this couldn't be on the list of qualifications requiring yearly renewal.

It should also be noted that not every law on the books should be there.  Yes, it would have been illegal for her to be carrying it, but there are laws that are there for a good purpose, and there are laws that are the source of more harm than good.  While you're still expected to follow even the laws that are more harm than good, that still doesn't change the fact that the law shouldn't be there if it's doing more harm than good.qu

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok 

It wouldn't be unreasonable to have yearly checks to make sure that you're qualified to own a gun.  People do it for their cars each year.  I don't see why this couldn't be on the list of qualifications requiring yearly renewal.quote>

Makes sense to me.   Sometimes yearly testing is a good idea.

My father uses a motorized wheelchair because he had a severe stroke years ago.  The assisted living facility where he lives requires him to undergo a test every year to make sure he still has enough marbles left to run the chair without plowing over little old ladies using walkers. 

 

 

[nthooze 13]

The right to bear arms primary purpose is about the peoples right to defend themselves from an oppressive government. The founding fathers were very deliberate in constructing the constitution to control the scope and power of government. An armed public is just one component of this construct. Hunting and home defense are secondary purposes. The move away from the constitution under both clinton and bush should be a huge concern for us all. Less we not learn the lesions of history.

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: nthooze The right to bear arms primary purpose is about the peoples right to defend themselves from an oppressive government. The founding fathers were very deliberate in constructing the constitution to control the scope and power of government. An armed public is just one component of this construct. ... Less we not learn the lesions of history.quote>

Ha, "Lesions of History", it was a painful subject in high school.

I personally think that justification, which has been raised many times in this thread, is a crock and used by many as a rationalisation. How many times have Canada, England, Australia, or any other first-world democracies been taken over by an oppressive government in the last hundred years. It may have been valid when the US was founded, but doesn't really work in modern times.

[toxicpiano 125]

May I ask why there are some Americans who believe that if guns are banned/restricted, then the government would 'take over'. It's all very confusing to me.

[JanYpe 17]

May I ask why there are some Americans who believe that if guns are banned/restricted, then the government would 'take over'. It's all very confusing to me.quote>

Because that shotgun on the wall is the only thing that's keeping the federal government from barging into their home and ordering them around and the only thing that's stopping Queen Elisabeth II from coming across the ocean and making them drink tea and warm beer.

It's mostly about the government taking too much liberty and screwing around with the Bill of Rights I believe.

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano May I ask why there are some Americans who believe that if guns are banned/restricted, then the government would 'take over'. It's all very confusing to me.quote>

 

To me, it's more of a symbolic issue. It would be considered that the government is taking over (if guns are banned) because it's taking away one of our civil liberties, the right to bear arms.

[belfastuniguy 18]

University where it's 'legal to carry guns'

Sima Kotecha US reporter, Utah

It's been a year since Cho Seung-Hui shot dead 32 people before killing himself at Virginia Tech University in the US. As America mourns 12 months on, Newsbeat has been to Utah to investigate the only state in the country where it's legal to carry guns on college campuses.

As Brent gets ready for class, he grabs a couple of text books, his backpack, and his 9mm semi-automatic Glock handgun. He straps it to his belt.

He said: "There have been a couple of times in my life where I've been wishing I had a way to defend myself.

"I've noticed that I'm completely at the mercy of other people and I don't like that feeling."

I got a handgun and a permit and now I'm ready to defend myself University of Utah student Brent

He's 25 and is a student at the University of Utah.

He's carried a gun for more than two years and told Newsbeat his parents support his decision to do so.

In 2006, the Utah State Supreme Court made it legal to carry guns on college campuses as long as the holder has a concealed weapons permit.

To get one of those, the applicant must be over 21 and have proof he or she is of good character.

The Utah Criminal code defines good character as the following:

• Someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime of violence.
• Someone who hasn't been convicted of an offence involving the use of alcohol.
• Someone who hasn't been labelled by a court or other legal body as mentally incompetent.

On top of this, applicants must complete a firearms familiarity course which is taught by a professional instructor.

Brent said: "We're responsible people. It's wrong to think that only mad people carry guns.

"We're not mad and have been through training and checks<

[coolotter88 2]

you'd rather the people at the universities to have promiscuous sex AND transmit disease? It's not going to change, young people will be young people, and they will do it, the best bet would be to protect those who choose to do so (and no one can POSSIBLY study every hour after class until meal time, then study some more and then sleep).

[zakuten 8]

It's probably a simple case of the gun lobby obstructed a campus exception in the statewide concealed weapons law... Not much else can be said.

As for the Health Office, er.. As I understand it, that's practically universal to have free condoms. I know ours does.

[hym 358]

The concept of arming a populace is a well known, and by a fairly reasonable percentage of persons, well accepted means of securing a location (I'm using a generic phrase since what you're trying to secure can vary greatly).  The approach was recommended when, following the VT shooting, my university was re-evaluating its security.  The advice given by both independent security firms and the FBI (the university police have a good working relationship with the FBI, so they can score favors from the agency as needed) was to bring more law enforcement on board and make sure that the university police had the tools necessary to work with a stand off situation.  Following that advice, outside law enforcement agencies (police, sheriff, etc.) are contracted to patrol the residence halls and university police now have bullet-proof vests and assault weaponry.  And if the power to the residence halls ever goes out (it does from time to time), this creates a "security problem" for the residence halls (they're designed to be locked 24/7 but if the power goes out, the locks automatically disengage).  To solve that security problem, the university suddenly floods with outside law enforcement officers till the power is back.  In case you haven't noticed the over-arching connection, this campus, like most others, is secured by individuals who have the legal authority to kill you if you become a threat.

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4 Yeah, this is just like that University Health Office that provided condoms for students or something like that... (I'm too tired to look it up )

Here's an idea, try actually learning instead of partying and.... "other things."quote>

Nothing is going to stop students from being students and students party.  It's part of college.  As for the condoms, everyone with a brain knows that they can't stop college students from having sex, so they are trying to cut down on disease transmission (colleges/universities are wonderful places to spread diseases from all the close contact).

[panthersimcity4 162]

Yeah, this is just like that University Health Office that provided condoms for students or something like that... (I'm too tired to look it up )

Here's an idea, try actually learning instead of partying and.... "other things."

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok To be honest about it, what's the difference overall between carrying a gun at a university and carrying a gun at a crowded mall? The opportunity for fatalities is high in either scenario.quote>

The difference is that people are at a mall to shop and have fun while people in a college classroom are supposed to be there to learn (although, outside on campus, that may not be the case).

It's not the same thing to be walking around a mall with a gun as it is to be sitting at a desk with a gun.

Still, I say it's up to the college. If they want to allow students to carry guns, they can do that. If they want to allow it but deny the privilege to students who have less than a certain GPA or have gotten in trouble for something, they can also do that. If they want to allow only staff to carry guns, they can do that. And if they want to forbid anyone from carrying a gun, they can do that, too. It's private property. What the owner says goes.

Of course, if the college is public (like a city or state school) then the appropriate legislature can step in.

[Voar Tok 4]

To be honest about it, what's the difference overall between carrying a gun at a university and carrying a gun at a crowded mall? The opportunity for fatalities is high in either scenario.

[coolotter88 2]

and there's nothing wrong with carrying the gun either, it's not the gun that kills people, it's the people who decide to kill people. most of these people who carry the guns aren't going to go out and kill the first person they see (lets hope they aren't, first rule of wikipedia, have good faith!).

[belfastuniguy 18]

I don't think they should be allowed in public places at all unless being carried by police.

Surely Americans can't be that terrified of life to constantly fear everyone and as such carry a gun?? I'd be more scared knowing that people were carrying guns than if they weren't.

The police in Northern Ireland carry guns, only force in the UK, but that's different than normal people walking round a university, kindergarten or mall with one.