I say yes. Look at VA Tech and somebody tell me what good NOT having guns did the students who weren't the schizo gunman? And what about teachers? People question if THEY should be allowed to carry guns on campus too, I say HELL yes, because normal people are not going to just open fire on everybody and the crazies don't give a damn about the ban anyway, they still come on campus and blow away whoever they want.

Carry guns so they can go around shooting EACH other? Not in this lifetime. Normal people won't open fire on each other but think of how many crazies attend school these days.

Tony Marino wrote:

Carry guns so they can go around shooting EACH other? Not in this lifetime. Normal people won't open fire on each other but think of how many crazies attend school these days.

I have news for you, if they ARE crazy, then the law prohibiting guns on campus is NOT going to stop them.

Supernova wrote:

I have news for you, if they ARE crazy, then the law prohibiting guns on campus is NOT going to stop them.

I have news for you, the "Normal" people you speak of are probably worse than the Crazies. The sickest people appear to be very Normal. How much pressure would it take to crack a "Normal" person? What about the teacher that gets angry with a student for misconduct, what is the chance that the teacher is going to whip out their gun and open fire on that student just because they are frustrated and angry??? Would you feel comfortable attending a school knowing that everyone was carrying a weapon? I think not. Would I want any of my children attending a school that allows students and teachers to carry guns? No fucking way that is just sick logic. I will have my child home schooled before that ever happens.

Tony Marino wrote:

I have news for you, the "Normal" people you speak of are probably worse than the Crazies. The sickest people appear to be very Normal. How much pressure would it take to crack a "Normal" person? What about the teacher that gets angry with a student for misconduct, what is the chance that the teacher is going to whip out their gun and open fire on that student just because they are frustrated and angry??? Would you feel comfortable attending a school knowing that everyone was carrying a weapon? I think not. Would I want any of my children attending a school that allows students and teachers to carry guns? No fucking way that is just sick logic. I will have my child home schooled before that ever happens.

1. I don't know, what IS the ratio of teachers shooting students?

2. They didn't allow students OR teachers to have guns at VA Tech and it was the biggest school massacre in this country. So what good did the 'normal crazies' or whatever, not having them, do anybody there? The only person who benefitted from the gun ban was THE crazy, who got guns and went to the campus and blew everybody away, because that ban ensured none of the normal students or teachers would have any chance to fire back at him.

Supernova wrote:

I have news for you, if they ARE crazy, then the law prohibiting guns on campus is NOT going to stop them.

If they ARE crazy, they are going to shoot you before you have a chance to draw that gun you think you should be carrying.

Young people have not fully matured, so they are not as equipped to handle their impulses, manage their anger, process negative emotion...yah, they should totally be packing.

RedBedroom wrote:

Young people have not fully matured, so they are not as equipped to handle their impulses, manage their anger, process negative emotion...yah, they should totally be packing.

The law says if you're 21 and can pass a background check, that you can.


Besides, why should young people be allowed to drive? It's a known fact MORE people are killed in car accidents than are EVER killed with guns, and then figure in those that drink (whether or not the law says they can) and text while they drive, why should young people ever be allowed behind the wheel until they're equipped to handle all that emotional crap?

Ok, but your thread was not age specific.

I am all for analogies, but this isn't a discussion about under 21 and driving. But, since you brought it up, let me just say that I will never advocate a 21 age requirement for a license. What would people who live in rural areas do? There would be an abundance of people who can't work due to lack of transportation.

Well since we're getting into age limits, WHY is it the law says 18 year olds can handle shotguns and rifles, but they have to wait until 21 for handguns? Does 3 years somehow make you more capable of handling a little gun than a big ass one with a long barrel? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. And WHAT about that 20 year old police chief in Mexico? The police weaponry there is shotguns and pistols, so if they had our age limit, that would mean their own police chief is too young to carry a pistol on her job, does that make any kind of sense at all?

Mexico doesn't have our age limits. So, no story there.

I honestly won't get into gun debates with you. Number one, I am not passionate about it, and number two, I don't know a lot about it.

But what I do know is that you worded your original post in a way that made it sound like anyone entering college should be able to carry, in your opinion. I disagree 100% with that. Now if they are 21 and their state law allows, then it is their right. Still, not a good idea in my book, but their right nonetheless.

Introducing the idea of carrying guns on campus is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. ONE isolated incident and all of a sudden people should be allowed to carry firearms to school? If they had a gun, it wouldn't have STOPPED the gunman at VA Tech. He went around shooting people who were all caught off guard. Nobody had time to react so he would've killed them anyway. And had there been a law to allow the carry of firearms on campus, the VA Tech massacre wouldn't have been considered such a tragedy. Because I mean hey, everybody is allowed to carry a gun. They should've shot him before he could shoot them right? This is totally retarded. Who in their right mind would even justify such a thing?

RedBedroom wrote:

Mexico doesn't have our age limits. So, no story there.

I honestly won't get into gun debates with you. Number one, I am not passionate about it, and number two, I don't know a lot about it.

But what I do know is that you worded your original post in a way that made it sound like anyone entering college should be able to carry, in your opinion. I disagree 100% with that. Now if they are 21 and their state law allows, then it is their right. Still, not a good idea in my book, but their right nonetheless.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Introducing the idea of carrying guns on campus is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. ONE isolated incident and all of a sudden people should be allowed to carry firearms to school? If they had a gun, it wouldn't have STOPPED the gunman at VA Tech. He went around shooting people who were all caught off guard. Nobody had time to react so he would've killed them anyway. And had there been a law to allow the carry of firearms on campus, the VA Tech massacre wouldn't have been considered such a tragedy. Because I mean hey, everybody is allowed to carry a gun. They should've shot him before he could shoot them right? This is totally retarded. Who in their right mind would even justify such a thing?

Supernova wrote:

I say yes. Look at VA Tech and somebody tell me what good NOT having guns did the students who weren't the schizo gunman? And what about teachers? People question if THEY should be allowed to carry guns on campus too, I say HELL yes, because normal people are not going to just open fire on everybody and the crazies don't give a damn about the ban anyway, they still come on campus and blow away whoever they want.

If they had all had guns, there would have just been that much more gunfire. Wouldn't have diffused the situation. If none of them had had guns, then the incident wouldn't have occurred. No one should be carrying a gun outside their own home (and no, college dorms don't count!)

femme fatale wrote:

If they had all had guns, there would have just been that much more gunfire. Wouldn't have diffused the situation. If none of them had had guns, then the incident wouldn't have occurred. No one should be carrying a gun outside their own home (and no, college dorms don't count!)

Except police do, and it's as much to protect THEMSELVES as other people, so if they have a right to openly carry to protect themselves from armed criminals, so does everybody else who can pass a background check. Yeah, a lot of crimes occur in the home, but what about carjackings, attacks in office buildings, etc? The police have no legal obligation to protect any individual so if you call them it's like a game of roulette if they even come or not, and that is not going to make a lot of people feel safe knowing they might never come, no matter how much they're called.

Supernova wrote:

I say yes. Look at VA Tech and somebody tell me what good NOT having guns did the students who weren't the schizo gunman? And what about teachers? People question if THEY should be allowed to carry guns on campus too, I say HELL yes, because normal people are not going to just open fire on everybody and the crazies don't give a damn about the ban anyway, they still come on campus and blow away whoever they want.

Sorry bad idea. I think for every one scenario where an armed civilian prevents a VA Tech, Columbine or Long Island R.R. tragedy, there’d be far more times when someone like that would be the cause instead of the savior. I’m not in favor of concealed weapon permits for most “adult” private citizens let alone 18 and 19 year olds. Just because "normal people are not going to just open fire on everybody", that doesn't mean they can be trusted to hit what they aim at. Besides, I don't trust some "normal people" not to start shooting if they think someone gave them the stink eye or took that parking space they've been waiting for at the mall or stepped on their blue suede shoes.

I think all college facilities should up their usage of metal detectors. I wouldn't wanna be anywhere where I know its permitted for civilians to have guns.

stonestatic wrote:

I think all college facilities should up their usage of metal detectors. I wouldn't wanna be anywhere where I know its permitted for civilians to have guns.

What I'd like to know is why so many people are uneasy at the idea of civilians having guns, but they have no problem with cops being armed. Like NONE of them ever proved to be a schizo, like none of them ever plugged somebody 50 times? Is it okay when it's part of the job or something? An 80 year old woman opening fire at the man trying to beat her to death, vs. plainclothes cops who spend the night drinking then gun a man down on his wedding day, the civilian is in a more positive light here than the trained professionals.

Supernova wrote:

What I'd like to know is why so many people are uneasy at the idea of civilians having guns, but they have no problem with cops being armed. Like NONE of them ever proved to be a schizo, like none of them ever plugged somebody 50 times? Is it okay when it's part of the job or something? An 80 year old woman opening fire at the man trying to beat her to death, vs. plainclothes cops who spend the night drinking then gun a man down on his wedding day, the civilian is in a more positive light here than the trained professionals.

The liklihood of a cop opening fire on someone is highly unlikely unless he is provoked by criminal actions, thats just ridiculous, its part of their job to carry a weapon. The liklihood of a criminal opening fire on a cop is higher, watch the news and read the paper. An 80 year old woman would not even have the chance to reach for a revolver in her purse if a man is going to accost her and what if that same 80 year old woman decided to open fire on someone that was NOT going to accost her, maybe someone visiting in the same building she lives in or just happened to be walking behind her. Living where you do, how would you feel that no matter where you went, grocery store, the movie theatre, the park, a restaurant that everyone has a gun in their pocket or purse, does that make you feel secure knowing you have one in yours as well? It certainly would NOT make me feel very comfortable.

Tony Marino wrote:

An 80 year old woman would not even have the chance to reach for a revolver in her purse if a man is going to accost her and what if that same 80 year old woman decided to open fire on someone that was NOT going to accost her, maybe someone visiting in the same building she lives in or just happened to be walking behind her. Living where you do, how would you feel that no matter where you went, grocery store, the movie theatre, the park, a restaurant that everyone has a gun in their pocket or purse, does that make you feel secure knowing you have one in yours as well? It certainly would NOT make me feel very comfortable.

1. An 80 year old woman DID have the chance to reach for the gun in her purse when a young man was attacking her in a mall parking lot, trying to beat her to death with her own cane because 'it doesn't matter, you're too old to live anyway'. She fired at him, did not hit him but the noise from the gun being fired brought the security guards around, and the man was caught and arrested. Had she not had her gun, he very well COULD have beaten her to death and nobody would've known what happened.

2. I don't think about 'is he carrying a gun? Is she carrying a gun?' I don't worry about it, if they are, they are, and if they're not, they're not. I don't obsess over just because we have the freedom to carry guns, the paranoid idea that EVERYBODY is then, and I'm in favor of people being able TO carry them because the police can NOT be everywhere at once, there aren't enough to personally assign one to every civilian so nothing ever happens to them, and they don't always come when called anyway, so often at times it's going to come down to the civilian vs. the criminal, and the criminal is not going to show mercy because the law doesn't let the law abiding people protect themselves, that just makes the criminals' job easier.

Supernova wrote:

1. An 80 year old woman DID have the chance to reach for the gun in her purse when a young man was attacking her in a mall parking lot, trying to beat her to death with her own cane because 'it doesn't matter, you're too old to live anyway'. She fired at him, did not hit him but the noise from the gun being fired brought the security guards around, and the man was caught and arrested. Had she not had her gun, he very well COULD have beaten her to death and nobody would've known what happened.

2. I don't think about 'is he carrying a gun? Is she carrying a gun?' I don't worry about it, if they are, they are, and if they're not, they're not. I don't obsess over just because we have the freedom to carry guns, the paranoid idea that EVERYBODY is then, and I'm in favor of people being able TO carry them because the police can NOT be everywhere at once, there aren't enough to personally assign one to every civilian so nothing ever happens to them, and they don't always come when called anyway, so often at times it's going to come down to the civilian vs. the criminal, and the criminal is not going to show mercy because the law doesn't let the law abiding people protect themselves, that just makes the criminals' job easier.

What are you talking about 1 isolated incident where the 80 year old lady was accosted? Now your suggesting we arm our seniors with weapons as well? Heck then why not arm everyone including kids 10 and under, they can be abducted by some perv and all they have to do is whip out their gun and blow them away and while they are at it, maybe Daddy too since more then likely they don't like him too much.

You don't think "is he carrying a gun or not" because you know that he probably is NOT carrying a gun and therefore you do not feel paranoid or threatened, you are totally beating around the bush here, you want people to carry weapons but at the same time you don't think about it or feel paranoid about it. You must live in a very unsafe city if you think the entire population should be carrying weapons. The idea of it is completely absurd and just plain insane. I live in NYC, you can't get much worse than here with crime and a city that lives under pressure all the time with a threat of when the next terrorist attack is going to hit us. We don't think about it, we just go on with our daily lives. So You think that all 16 million of us should get weapons and carry them in case we are in a situation where we might be attacked by someone or possibly a terror attack? That will go over well with City Hall.

The law says if you are old enough and can pass a background check, you CAN own guns and carry, and depending on where you are, conceal. I'm not saying GIVE everybody a gun, I'm saying those who by law can qualify for them, if they want to exercise their right in carrying them, it should be their right to protect themselves. No law is broken in LAW ABIDING people carrying guns where they're allowed, the law is broken were CRIMINALS bring them where they're not allowed. But criminals don't really care what the law says, do they? That's WHY they're called criminals. And the law is broken WHEN criminals use guns to kill people in cold blood, NOT when civilians use guns to ward off attacks on themselves or other people. If YOU don't want to carry one, fine, nobody saying you should, but I don't think that every student and teacher who goes to a college should just automatically get to be a sitting duck to the next Cho who walks in the front door.

Why do store owners keep guns behind the counter? Because they know criminals break into stores and rob places and even kill the owners. The owners are not looking to just plug some guy 6 times, they only take the guns out when they are met with an immediate threat of harm and/or death by a criminal.

The irony of it all is that only 30,000 people per year in this country, die from gunshot wounds, and that includes suicides which lets face it, if the people didn't have guns they would find another way, and shootings which are ruled self defense and justifiable homicide. In comparison, more people die in this country per year from household accidents, car crashes, the flu, a doctor making a mistake on a patient's diagnosis, treatment or prescription, and even by smoking, than EVER die from guns. And yes there are people saying 'make the roads safer to drive on, raise the driving age' and 'ban smoking in public places, ban smoking in the park' and 'get your flu shots, get everybody a flu shot', but somehow, these deaths that could be prevented by smarter people and better medical care, are overlooked just to make a big show of 'guns kill people, guns are bad, ban them'. But the thing these kinds of people always overlook is any law banning guns is only going to BENEFIT the criminals. If you're a criminal, what is more likely going to scare you off? Somebody who has a gun, or somebody who says 'oh excuse me, can you wait right here while I call 911'?

That's why you NEVER hear about security systems being effective in scaring off burglars, but you always hear stories about homeowners who pull guns on their intruders, and the thieves are caught. Miss America from 1944, in her 80s, shot out the tires of the getaway car driven by the thieves who had come onto her farm and robbed her, and they were caught. A 17 year old broke into the home of another old woman, she held her gun to his head and made him call the cops on himself and he was arrested. And is a person any less entitled to protection of their life when they step out of their yard as when they're on their own property?

Quote :

1. An 80 year old woman DID have the chance to reach for the gun in her purse when a young man was attacking her in a mall parking lot, trying to beat her to death with her own cane because 'it doesn't matter, you're too old to live anyway'. She fired at him, did not hit him but the noise from the gun being fired brought the security guards around, and the man was caught and arrested. Had she not had her gun, he very well COULD have beaten her to death and nobody would've known what happened.

How the heck can you use that example in support of her having carried a gun? She shot at him and missed. Thank God she did not hit somebody. As far as her shot bringing security to her aid...I am happy it ended that way with her. But, in general, security may not even be close enough to fast enough find where the shot came from.

Seems you are an advocate for anyone who is old enough and passes a background check, to carry. I think the point you are failing to see is that if that became more commonplace, you would see on the news every other night about people going off on someone and pulling a gun. Not saying the majority would shoot, but they would pull it out. Think of all the stories of parents going batty at their kid's sporting events, people in stores assaulting other customers, co-workers coming to blows...the list is endless with scenarios where people may use their carried gun in the heat of the moment because they are hot headed.