CINCINNATI, Ohio (CNN) -- "Would you rather just sit there and cower underneath a desk when someone executes you or would you rather have a chance to defend your life? That's what it really boils down to."

 

 

Michael Flitcraft says students should be allowed to protect themselves from potential killers.

 

Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old sophomore at the University of Cincinnati, has become a leading advocate for college students to carry weapons on campus. He's an organizer for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, a grass-roots organization that was formed after last year's Virginia Tech massacre that left 32 college students and professors dead.

 

More below

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

43,000 killed by cars each year; 12,000 by guns

The problem I see with permission of concealed carry on campus (or any other place with large concentrations of people) is that once someone fires, someone else will and after that. It could lead to confusion to anyone else present, regarding who initiated it. It's an intense situation where people would be required to think and act fast.The Chief makes a valid point. Next thing you know, you have shots flying everywhere.

 

Interesting that concealed carry works best when only a small portion of people take advantage of it.

 

Responding to Brad:

43k is insane. I wonder how many are a result of drunk driving.

 

Lets be realistic here, I have my concealed carry permit, but I don't consider myself "combat ready."  I'll leave that to the police thank you very much.  Just play the Virginia Tech scenario out in your head if students had guns.  Some jerkwad would be hiding behind a desk, peeing his pants, firing wildly to "have a chance to defend themselves."  Do they REALLY think that they can hold up under fire?  I MIGHT be willing to say that combat veterans and police officers who are students should be allowed to carry on campus.  But your average Joe?  Thats just asking for chaos if anything ever does happen.  Then what about when the police arrive on the scene?  The police arrive, and 15 people come out of the builidng packing firearms, what are they to do?  Seriously stupid idea.

 

(Another thing that bothers me is that I saw the peice on CNN and who they interviewed -- it didn't help that the person interviewed was carrying, but breaking the concealed carry law for part of the segment because he was carrying openly.  Its called CONCEALED carry for a reason, and its one of the FIRST things they teach in the training course you have to take to get your license)

43k is insane. I wonder how many are a result of drunk driving.

 

Not nearly as many as you might think (if you believe some sources).  Check it out from an impartial source (i.e., not affiliated with MADD).  DD deaths are only a fraction of total driving deaths.  Here are some numbers from the CDC - http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm

 

According to the CDC, about 39% of all traffic related deaths are caused by impaired drivers (16,885 of 48,423 traffic fatalities in 2005).  The harder to find number is the fraction of those killed who were the impaired driver themself.  (i.e., did the driver kill just themself by impaired, or did they kill someone else)

 

 

More guns...More violence.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  I support the NRA.

No, people with guns kill people :).

^ and people with knives, and... and...

Governments with nuclear weapons kill people.

 

In Canada's case, people with clubs wack seals.

^ and people with knives, and... and...

 

Yes, but knives have other purposes such as cutting meat, onions, etc.  Guns are a weapon to potentially kill.  Sure, they protect but a society living in fear is a society lost.

Guns are used to hunt game! And rebel against the government if need be. I for one am not afraid of nuclear missiles and the cancerous effects of plutonium and uranium.

Besides, pistol whipping someone is so much more fashionable and cool than just punching or containing them. If I ever had to go to court, I'd want to be accused of pistol whipping. It's a great way to go out.

^ and people with knives, and... and...

 

Yes, but knives have other purposes such as cutting meat, onions, etc.  Guns are a weapon to potentially kill.  Sure, they protect but a society living in fear is a society lost.

 

 

Well, if you're going to go down that road, you have to draw a distinction between killing and murdering.  Knives have purposes that do not include murder, yet they are often used to murder people.  Guns also have purposes that do not include murder, yet they are often misused as well.

 

Personally, I don't own any guns, but I respect and support the right of others to do so.

If I ever had to go to court, I'd want to be accused of pistol whipping. It's a great way to go out.

 

LOL!

^ and people with knives, and... and...

 

Yes, but knives have other purposes such as cutting meat, onions, etc.  Guns are a weapon to potentially kill.  Sure, they protect but a society living in fear is a society lost.

 

 

Well, if you're going to go down that road, you have to draw a distinction between killing and murdering.  Knives have purposes that do not include murder, yet they are often used to murder people.  Guns also have purposes that do not include murder, yet they are often misused as well.

 

Personally, I don't own any guns, but I respect and support the right of others to do so.

 

What purpose does a gun have besides shooting something/one?  Does it slice your onions for wedding soup?  Does it sing Air Supply like a Wendy's burger?

 

I just think this country is quite uncivilized if we are still talking about gun possession and the 2nd Amendment.

Guns are used to hunt game! And rebel against the government if need be. I for one am not afraid of nuclear missiles and the cancerous effects of plutonium and uranium.

 

You don't hunt with a hand gun or semi-automatic.

What purpose does a gun have besides shooting something/one?  Does it slice your onions for wedding soup?  Does it sing Air Supply like a Wendy's burger?

 

I just think this country is quite uncivilized if we are still talking about gun possession and the 2nd Amendment.

 

I'm just saying that people have the right to bear arms for the purposes of self defense, hunting, sport shooting, collection, etc.  If someone breaks into your house with the intent to do you harm and you shoot them, that isn't murder.  That's a gun fulfilling one of its purposes, to protect the life of its owner.  It would be nice if this country was "civilized" enough to make that scenario an impossibility, but unfortunately that's not the case.  If you take guns away from the people, you actually end up disarming only the law-abiding general public, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals that won't obey gun control laws any more than they would obey any other law.

 

If the point is that guns are weapons only, whereas knives are not, then so are mace and pepperspray.  Granted, you're unlikely to kill someone with either of those, but they exist solely to injure someone else and have zero other functions.  Presumably, handguns and these items serve the same purpose, self defense, but you never hear any uproar about people carrying those other items (nor should there be).

 

David also brought up an interesting point about overthrowing the gov't, even though it was likely in jest.  One of the key reasons this right was acknowledged 200+ years ago was because this country was born of revolution, and the founders realized that this would have been impossible if the right to bear arms had been denied & enforced earlier.  Since it wasn't inconceivable that the new government would get out of control and require a similar uprising of the people at some point in the near or distant future, the right to bear arms was explicitly protected.  Even though I think people who are part of militias nowadays are insane, the fact is that one of the reasons we have the right to bear arms is to ensure that our democracy will never be subverted to totalitarianism by making sure that the gov't can never prevent the people from arming themselves.  It's an unlikely event in the US, but it has happened in recent world history, so it's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

 

 

This thread has kind of gotten off topic, from the discussion of guns at UC to debating firearms in general.  Feel free to throw another response out there, but after that, we should probably get back to talking about UC's campus specifically.

I'm just saying that people have the right to bear arms for the purposes of self defense, hunting, sport shooting, collection, etc.  If someone breaks into your house with the intent to do you harm and you shoot them, that isn't murder.  That's a gun fulfilling one of its purposes, to protect the life of its owner.  It would be nice if this country was "civilized" enough to make that an impossibility, but unfortunately that's not the case.  If you take guns away from the people, you actually end up disarming the general public, while leaving guns in the hands of criminals that won't obey gun control laws any more than they would any other law.

 

Well, really, how would we know that if it hasn't been done?  We could make it that much harder for criminals to possess weapons and/or find other measures of de-arming criminals i.e. tasers or something.

 

Even though I think people who are part of militias nowadays are insane, the fact is that one of the reasons we have the right to bear arms is to ensure that our democracy will never be subverted to totalitarianism by ensuring that the gov't can never prevent the people from arming themselves.

 

Yes, but what happens when society cannot control theirselves regarding gun use?  Do you just LET people keep shooting each other senselessly?  I mean, somebody's got to draw a line somewhere.

 

As far as UC students wanting to carry weapons on campus, you'd also have to allow the twits that like to shoot things to also carry weapons on campus, and then we'd have Virginia Tek 9 Part Deux.  I'm sorry but this whole cycle of "well, I'm protecting myself by carrying a gun so it's fine" schtick is getting this country nowhere.

I don't think it matters if we talk about gun control in general-- It's about UC but it's also about a bigger issue in general.

 

Your ideas about gun ownership equating to an uncivilized society will go out the window if Russia or some other country happend to come over and invade us in the streets. It's hard to imagine such a scenario where there's civil or international war because none of us have lived through it but there's a good reason why it was included in the constitution.

 

If someone is so irresponsible that they go around just shooting things, they're going to do it anyway. They don't need a law to enable them to carry around their gun and shoot sh!t whenever they feel like it. Getting a concealed carry permit requires a safety course. You don't just stand in line and pay a fee.

 

If someone has the audacity to break in my house and threaten my life and the lives of my friends and family, they're getting a cap in their @ss. Plain and simple. 

Well, really, how would we know that if it hasn't been done?  We could make it that much harder for criminals to possess weapons and/or find other measures of de-arming criminals i.e. tasers or something.

 

Well, the government certainly tries to make drugs hard to get, but that doesn't stop anyone who wants them from getting their hands on them.  It's a different thing, but the concept and limitations are the same.  I could cite statistics from other countries that have outlawed firearms, but I'm sure you'd be able to do the same to back up your argument.  I don't believe in arguing via stats because if you try hard enough you can usually find a study that supports your point of view, no matter what it is.

 

 

Yes, but what happens when society cannot control theirselves regarding gun use?  Do you just LET people keep shooting each other senselessly?  I mean, somebody's got to draw a line somewhere.

 

I think that's where everyone gets hung up.  Where do we draw the line?  Certainly we need some sort of gun control in this country, but how do we keep guns out of the wrong hands without impinging on the rights of law abiding citizens?  It's a big problem, obviously, and I don't have a good answer.

 

 

As far as UC students wanting to carry weapons on campus, you'd also have to allow the twits that like to shoot things to also carry weapons on campus, and then we'd have Virginia Tek 9 Part Deux.  I'm sorry but this whole cycle of "well, I'm protecting myself by carrying a gun so it's fine" schtick is getting this country nowhere.

 

I'd argue again that you'd still have those twits carrying weapons on campus.  The kind of person that is willing to kill innocent strangers and then themself isn't likely to be the kind of person who would balk at obtaining guns illegally.

Your ideas about gun ownership equating to an uncivilized society will go out the window if Russia or some other country happend to come over and invade us in the streets. It's hard to imagine such a scenario where there's civil or international war because none of us have lived through it but there's a good reason why it was included in the constitution.

 

If someone is so irresponsible that they go around just shooting things, they're going to do it anyway. They don't need a law to enable them to carry around their gun and shoot sh!t whenever they feel like it. Getting a concealed carry permit requires a safety course. You don't just stand in line and pay a fee.

 

If someone has the audacity to break in my house and threaten my life and the lives of my friends and family, they're getting a cap in their @ss. Plain and simple. 

 

And this is why America is going straight to hell.  I have no problem with protection, I think we can all "get" that.  It's the availability of protection and continued ideas of "well, they are comin' after me, I got somethin' commin!" is what makes this society almost barbaric.  Then again, it all starts at home and if the home ain't good, ain't anybody gonna be good.

 

Well, the government certainly tries to make drugs hard to get, but that doesn't stop anyone who wants them from getting their hands on them.  It's a different thing, but the concept and limitations are the same.  I could cite statistics from other countries that have outlawed firearms, but I'm sure you'd be able to do the same to back up your argument.  I don't believe in arguing via stats because if you try hard enough you can usually find a study that supports your point of view, no matter what it is.

 

I dig that and I agree that the stats thing is pointless.  I could say "Japan doesn't have guns and you don't see them shooting folks in Ginza!" and you could say "Well, Japan ain't AMERICA!"  Or something. 

 

I think that's where everyone gets hung up.  Where do we draw the line?  Certainly we need some sort of gun control in this country, but how do we keep guns out of the wrong hands without impinging on the rights of law abiding citizens?  It's a big problem, obviously, and I don't have a good answer.

 

If we had the answer, we wouldn't be having this discussion lol!

 

I'd argue again that you'd still have those twits carrying weapons on campus.  The kind of person that is willing to kill innocent strangers and then themself isn't likely to be the kind of person who would balk at obtaining guns illegally.

 

Well, then I'd argue that abolishing guns would make it tougher for those twits to find them and taking baby steps of using tasers (i.e. UK) would help society progress to a less aggressive place. 

 

But who cares.  Guns are legal, the Constitution says so, and everybody should have a gun to protect themself.  It's the American way!  Won't 1984 come in 2009, please.

I'm feeling what chris is saying but it's 1:13 am and my brain is about to explode. Can I at least have a gun without the clip so I can pistol whip if I feel like it?

 

Basically, let's try this stuff, eh?:

 

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon. The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).

 

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.  New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

 

But blah blah.  Again, oh well.  People are allowed to carry guns in this country so what the hell!  Bring those gats to school with your text books and pencils.  I mean, what could go wrong?

Personally, I think we can do SENSIBLE things to encourage gun control and accountability for their use.  As I said before, I am a gun owner, but I don't really consider myself a gun owning "yahoo"

 

Here's an idea to encourage both gun control and accountability, one that will never get past the NRA, but in many states, you actually have to register your firearms (serial number, make mode, address where stored, etc).  I dont' consider this an onerous restriction and I think it should be required everywhere.  Second, on top of registration, I think they should take a sample bullet shot through the gun for ballistics purposes.  Then, anytime, they find a slug, they can work on tracing it back to the person who they last have registered as owning the weapon.  Again, I don't see this as terribly onerous at all.

 

In the end, I find the argument that the constitution supports a personal right to carry a firearm relatively ridiculous in this day and age.  What good are firearms against laser guided one ton bombs?  When it was drafted, it made sense, it was plausible that if a large enough portion of the citizenry stood up and decided to rebel against the gov't, it could happen.  Now, that justification makes no sense.  I mean really, lets be clear here, if that were to happen here, if things were to get to the point where citizens were actually taking arms against the gov't, does anyone think that the gov't wouldn't fight back with the full might of the armed forces?  Gun ownership as a means to take back the gov't means nothing today.

 

Self defense is a valid reason to own a gun, even though most will never have to use it for that reason, but if that insurance policy makes you feel better, well then great, so long as you don't use your gun irresponsibly.  I like to target shoot, and from time to time I like to hunt, and I think these are also valid reasons that a law abiding citizen should be allowed to have a firearm.

 

Absolute abolition of firearms will not completely solve the problem, and frankly, unless you take them away from the police too, I won't be supporting abolition.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. 

 

Guns don't die, people do.

 

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.  New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[/i]

 

 

Interesting stat, but of that 70% using those guns.  Probably 98% of those folks SHOULDN'T even own or posses a firearm.  MOST guns used in/for crimes in this country are not registered and are normally committed by somebody who couldn't even get a registered gun.   

 

So why in the world would I give my REGISTERED LEGAL guns up so some punk could bust in my house while I am standing there with my C.I.H.

 

America may be going to hell, but it is not the result of the conceal and carry laws.  It runs deeper than just guns in this country.      Drug laws, Education, Economics and the breakdown of our inner cities and the families that inhabit them are where the problem lies.

 

You can throw Personal Responsibility in there too!     

 

 

Hohum, I love those ideas.  Give me the right to purchase and responsibly own a firearm, but also make it ridiculously easy to trace it back to me if necessary.  I don't have any problem with that. 

 

I also agree that it's extremely unlikely that we would ever need revolution in this coutry or that it would even be possible if it was necessary.  However, I think it's impossible to know exactly how it would shake out, if the worst ever were to happen.  It's unlikely that the full military force would be unleashed no matter what, and it's also possible that a fraction of the police, military, etc would end up on the other side, something that could be augmented either by a self-armed militia or a military aided militia consisting of people who are already very familiar with firearms.  That would amount to more of a second civil war than a second revolution.  I think we can all agree that these scenarios are bleak and far-fetched, but they're still not entirely impossible, meaning that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment still bears some weight, even if far less than it once did.

 

Interesting stat, but of that 70% using those guns.   Probably 98% of those folks SHOULDN'T even own or posses a firearm.   MOST guns used in/for crimes in this country are not registered and are normally committed by somebody who couldn't even get a registered gun.    

 

Exactly.  Also, it's difficult to determine from stats what the exact situations were.  In NYC, how made of those murders would have happened anyway without guns?  Whether someone shoots me, stabs me, or hits me over the head with a bat, I'm still dead.  Doesn't really make a difference what was used to do it because the end result is the same.

 

 

You can throw Personal Responsibility in there too!     

 

The bulk of the social problems in this country can be traced back to the erosion of personal responsibility.

If someone has the audacity to break in my house and threaten my life and the lives of my friends and family, they're getting a cap in their @ss. Plain and simple.

 

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.  Basically I think that by using a gun you are only exacerbating the entire issue.  You get a hand gun under your pillow, then the bad guys go and get semi-automatics...and so on.  Bad people in this world will always do you one better.  Instead of engaging in an arms race I'd rather see our society attempt to solve the roots behind criminal activity (i.e. the need to rob or the desire to kill).

 

ColDay give your cycle of fear speil. It made sense.

 

 

The bulk of the [glow=red,2,300]social [/glow] problems in this country can be traced back to the erosion of [glow=red,2,300]personal responsibility[/glow].

 

Or maybe too much emphasis on it?

Basically.

 

1. The very idea of owning a gun increases the cycle of fear as this country has an anti-social issue and you don't trust your neighbor (not literally).  Thus, you are forced to buy a gun for "protection."  That feeling of "being protected" is what drives this 'cycle of fear' to continue.

 

2. Because of this cycle of fear and social ills (such as discrimination, weak economic times, etc), the gun culture of this country will continue due to "well, I ain't lettin' anybody get me!" When infact let's focus on why a person would get you in the first place.  Pardon the pun, but letting your guns down and focusing on the improvement of the social structure of America will be a baby step in eroding this cycle of fear.  The excuse of "I need to protect myself" is disturbing and I grew up in a "gun toting" area.  Sure, protection of family is a valid excuse but imagine teaching your child to protect yourself with a gun.  The child will either use a gun for protection or use it for harm.  50% sane or 50% psycho.  Cycle continues in a "Christian" America.

 

3. Or maybe I'm just crazy.  "It's just a dream" afterall for a safer America.

CDM.  You betta preach!

OR, you own a gun, not out of fear, but because you can, and shooting targets is fun, and hunting is a kind of commune with the natural world that few people experience. 

 

Or, if you are living in fear, its not fear of your neighbors guns, its fear of criminals with guns, and that really is a distinction even over neighbors in the figurative sense. 

 

The difference is, you can own a gun, and be a sensible person who isn't living in fear. 

 

But, I understand the argument.

OR, you own a gun, not out of fear, but because you can, and shooting targets is fun, and hunting is a kind of commune with the natural world that few people experience. 

 

Or, if you are living in fear, its not fear of your neighbors guns, its fear of criminals with guns, and that really is a distinction even over neighbors in the figurative sense. 

 

The difference is, you can own a gun, and be a sensible person who isn't living in fear. 

 

But, I understand the argument.

 

Apparently, you didn't get it.  We all know you can own a gun.  I can also kill somebody.  Whoopdy do.  There's an action to every reaction.  I have no problem with hunting, if that's your thing.  I'm getting on the personal firearms for a civilized society, for which that "criminal" is also your neighbor.  And it's society's continued obsession of "shooting is fun!" is what I'm also scared about.

I think you misinterpret my "because you can"... I mean, because the law says you can.  Not the can in the "can I walk to the store sense" the can in the "will I get arrested if I walk to the store sense."

 

The criminal may also be your neighbor, but obviously this is where we will continue to have a disagreement.  If your "neighbor" is in any way trying to harm you, I believe that you have an absolute right to defend yourself.  Beyond laws here, absolute human and natural right to protect your life.  Whether with a gun, or a stick, or your fists, or whatever.

 

The point I was making is that NOT ALL of personal firearm ownership is driven by that fear.  I do not live afraid, and not because I have a gun, but because I refuse to live my life that way.  Are there a significant number of gun owners who own because of that fear?  Absolutely.  But its the FEAR that is ridiculous, not the gun ownership.

 

As a society, do we need to convince people not to own guns, or not to live in fear?

If your "neighbor" is in any way trying to harm you, I believe that you have an absolute right to defend yourself.  Beyond laws here, absolute human and natural right to protect your life.  Whether with a gun, or a stick, or your fists, or whatever.

 

Sure, protection is a human trait but human compassion is another.  Trying to avert a need for protection is what I'm getting at.  And as you said, there are other ways of defending yourself aside from guns.

 

The point I was making is that NOT ALL of personal firearm ownership is driven by that fear.  I do not live afraid, and not because I have a gun, but because I refuse to live my life that way.  Are there a significant number of gun owners who own because of that fear?  Absolutely.  But its the FEAR that is ridiculous, not the gun ownership.

 

And my whole point is that having a gun to begin with perpetuates a fear in the first place.  The fear of somebody coming for you, even if you don't think about it on a daily basis, you have the gun for a reason.  Protection, right?  Why do you need to be protected?  A fear of someone stealing, robbing, or even worse, murdering you, your family, or your posessions.  Unless, of course, you have a gun just to shoot at a tree or some beer bottles but that's kinda, well, f#cked up on another level.

 

As a society, do we need to convince people not to own guns, or not to live in fear?

 

As a society, if we didn't have guns, then there would be less to fear.

The fear of somebody coming for you, even if you don't think about it on a daily basis, you have the gun for a reason.  Protection, right?

No, I don't have it for protection at all.  Could it be used for that if that horrible situation were to come up?  Yes.  So could a bat, or a knife.  But thats not why I own a gun.  Thats what I am saying.  Some of us actually just enjoy shooting, and the history, and all of that.  I own an "antique" gun.  Manufactured in 1915.  It was my great grandfather's sidearm during WWI.  I have it for nostalgia, as a piece of American craftsmanship and engineering that is rarely seen anymore today.  I enjoy the fact that it still works exactly as well today, as it worked when it kept my relatives alive. 

 

As a society, if we didn't have guns, then there would be less to fear.

Absolutely indisputable.  But with the caveat, that state, namely the police don't have that power either.  Because that still generates fear in me.

Absolutely indisputable.  But with the caveat, that state, namely the police don't have that power either.  Because that still generates fear in me.

 

Bingo.  That's why there needs to be a better integration with the police and the state with its own people.

But we as a society don't have or not have guns.  It's a question of who as individual has and can have guns.  And by has, I mean has right now.  That matters, big time.  Because we'll never, ever, get rid of all the guns.  And we'll only really reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals significantly in the long run.  And as we know from economics, in the long run, we're all dead.

 

But having guns on campus, now that's just crazy.

^ I really don't see a difference between people having the right to carry them on campus and people having the right to carry a weapon off of campus. Can someone explain that?

It's the university's own rules.  You can't smoke within 25ft of building entrances either, but this only applies to on-campus stuff.

I thought it was a state law requiring that.

The state law requires that institutions which desire to disallow concealed carry can.  The statute specifically says you can't carry in bars and other places.  I thought universities were covered there as well, but it could be just that UC has chosen to forbid concealed carry (but in that case they would have to post signs, and I haven't seen those).  This leads me to believe that its covered under the concealed carry statute as a specific restriction.  I don't have the time to check the statute now, but I believe this is the case...

 

 

Basically.

 

1. The very idea of owning a gun increases the cycle of fear as this country has an anti-social issue and you don't trust your neighbor (not literally).  Thus, you are forced to buy a gun for "protection."  That feeling of "being protected" is what drives this 'cycle of fear' to continue.

 

2. Because of this cycle of fear and social ills (such as discrimination, weak economic times, etc), the gun culture of this country will continue due to "well, I ain't lettin' anybody get me!" When infact let's focus on why a person would get you in the first place.  Pardon the pun, but letting your guns down and focusing on the improvement of the social structure of America will be a baby step in eroding this cycle of fear.  The excuse of "I need to protect myself" is disturbing and I grew up in a "gun toting" area.  Sure, protection of family is a valid excuse but imagine teaching your child to protect yourself with a gun.  The child will either use a gun for protection or use it for harm.  50% sane or 50% psycho.  Cycle continues in a "Christian" America.

 

3. Or maybe I'm just crazy.  "It's just a dream" afterall for a safer America.

 

I owned (and occasionally carried) a gun when I lived at CWRU.  Quite illegally and quite against University rules.  Northside abutted some un-good neighborhoods.  I never had to even consider using it.  It was an insurance policy more than anything else and I could do things and go places I might not otherwise go.    But I doubt anyone was afraid of me as a result.  Henceforth, no “cycle”.

 

Mistrust isn’t always a bad thing, even of the government.  Indeed, the Founding Fathers not only expected the people to mistrust the government, they encouraged it.  The Second Amendment was primarily meant as a check on potential government abuses…remember that this was a time when anything resembling representative government was closer to unique than merely unusual.

 

Trust is something that’s earned, and to say that history has shown that it should not be granted to all merely for breathing falls on the far side of obviousness. We do need to have the capability of protecting ourselves.  Indeed, not having that capability increases the likelihood that it will be needed.

 

Safety and peace can't be our only priority.  If it was, they might as well (intentionally) put prozac in the water supply.

 

Trust is something that’s earned, and to say that history has shown that it should not be granted to all merely for breathing falls on the far side of obviousness. We do need to have the capability of protecting ourselves.  Indeed, not having that capability increases the likelihood that it will be needed.

 

Safety and peace can't be our only priority.  If it was, they might as well (intentionally) put prozac in the water supply. [/b][/color]

 

Kevin from Purdue just called, he wants his term paper back!  :-D

 

I don't know where I stand on the issue anymore. I think I'm against it.

The other side of it is that people are less likely to initiate it if they know people in class have them as well, but I think most people agree that if it did go down, the consequences could be disastrous. I'd like to see some empirical data on this but I doubt it exists, as only a few universities even allow concealed weapons and the experience is rare.

I don't see it mattering one way or the other really.  Guns are heavy and cumbersome to carry around.  School shootings are exceedingly rare.  People are lazy.  Do the math and figure the odds that a school shooter is likely to run into someone who actually bothered to bring a gun.  Most students don't even bring a pen.

Student a: *looks at student next to him* Hey man my alarm clock didnt go off and I got flustered and left in a hurry - you got a spare pistol?

 

Student b: Yeah but the only other one I have that I can give you is this .22 Beretta

 

Student a: Oh, that's fine. That'll suffice. Thanks.

Guns are used to hunt game! And rebel against the government if need be. I for one am not afraid of nuclear missiles and the cancerous effects of plutonium and uranium.

 

You don't hunt with a hand gun or semi-automatic.

 

You don't know much about hunting if you think people don't hunt with semi-autos or handguns. Do some research and you'll learn something new.