I go to school at the University of Alabama Huntsville.

[gorfle]

I go to school at UAH. My classes are in the same building where the shooting happened. I walk by the biology classrooms on the way to my classroom every day I have class. So this shooting hits very close to home for me.

I want very much now to get a concealed carry permit. I do not want to be in a situation like this and be waiting, helpless, in a classroom while we hope and pray the police get to us before a shooter does. Unfortunately, even with such a permit, lawful students cannot carry firearms on the UAH campus. Interestingly there are no statues in Alabama that prevent citizens from carrying concealed weapons on university grounds, it is a restriction the university places on it's students.

I am now determined to join Students for Concealed Carry on Campus ( http://concealedcampus.org/ ). I hope to start a local chapter at UAH.

The bottom line is that every single time there is one of these shootings it is someone with a gun that stops them, and those people are never there when the shooting starts.

I want responsible, 21-year-old and older, law-abiding, CCW-permit holding people to be able to carry a firearm on university campuses just like they do on main street.

After today's shooting at my school, I am now personally outraged that I am told that I have be defenseless in the face of people who have already determined to commit murder and violate any and all rules concerning firearms on campus.

I have, from time to time, looked up at the doors into my classroom and pondered what it would be like to have a Cho or the like burst into the room and treat us all like fish in a barrel. Now I will be looking at that door much more often and with a much greater sense of the reality and possibility of that situation happening.

I, and everyone in that classroom, is at the mercy of anyone who decides to become a murderer that day. We are all powerless to do anything about it.

And I think that sucks.

[aliendroid]

1. smart kid

I wish you luck getting your concealed carry permit

[gorfle]

7. Thanks, but I am no kid.

I am a nearly 40-year-old working professional.

[amazingfunksta]

83. I am the State Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Hey, I was searching for information and noticed your post.

If you haven't contacted me already, please feel free to do so. My email is [e-mail].

Also, if you don't have a facebook already, please get one and join the facebook group "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus".

[Hoopla Phil]

2. Good luck. This incident is more proof that "Gun - Free" signs do not

stop the crazies.

[sharesunited]

3. Better to devote your efforts to halting the retail sale of new guns and ammo.

More guns on your campus is clearly a bad idea.

[aliendroid]

4. don't listen to this guy

He's a racist elitist, he thinks "those people" over there in the city centers should not have guns because they are of a particular type of people. ;)

[sharesunited]

5. I love all people and don't want them to suffer your version of society.

Here:


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09taj.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/200...

http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/Little-Girl-Shot-...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/Teen_Girl_Sh...

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/19931720/detail.html

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15414886/detail.html

http://cbs4.com/local/rebeca.perez.miami.2.1446340.html

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/08/hammond-teen...

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/30/local/me-baldwi...

http://www.wgal.com/news/19423555/detail.html

[gorfle]

11. But you won't let us defend ourselves!

I love all people and don't want them to suffer your version of society.

But you steadfastly stand against people like me who want to be able to defend myself from those kinds of people.

Why do you want me to have to sit in a classroom full of people unable to defend myself from people like Dr. Amy Bishop?

Why are you so intent at placing me at the mercy of policemen who never arrive until after the fact?

I'm tired of it, and I'm angry. I'm tired of people like you making naive, feel-good rules that people like Dr. Amy Bishop just ignore and walk right in with a gun and blow people away, while the rules that people like you made turn me into a victim with no chance of fighting back.

I don't want to be a defenseless victim. I want the chance to fight back. And I go to see that we have it. I'll be damned if I'm going to take this sitting down.

[sharesunited]

29. You're deluding yourself. More guns and ammo means you get hit without ever knowing what happened.

The only sensible thing to stand up for is the elimination of the threat.

Don't make the grievous mistake of compounding the threat and multiplying the permutations for harm.

[gorfle]

32. How?

More guns and ammo means you get hit without ever knowing what happened.

How does this happen?

[Tim01]

38. Would you care to defend your opinion with some actual facts? nt

[JoeyT]

52. Yeah!

The only sensible thing to stand up for IS the elimination of the threat.
We should just outlaw murder. That would solve everything.
I don't know why no one thought of that yet.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. So you would advocate disarming the cops to make them safer? LOL.

[aikoaiko]

86. Your fears don't generally happen when a civilian stops a criminal shooter with lethal force.

So why do you fear it?

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

104. The "guns behave randomly, like gas molecules" fallacy

Illogical.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. The people she shot were unarmed.

Being unarmed didn't stop them from being victims, it only ensured that they would be victims.

[aliendroid]

13. anti-gun nut rulebook

post up a bunch of links about specific events of violent crime. Ignore the fact that violent crime is reducing thanks to concealed carry. Ignore the fact that violent crime in New Hampshire and vermont are the lowest in the country and have the least restrictions on guns. Ignore the fact that the state south of NH and vermont, that borders them has 4 times more violent crime and is one of the states with the most strict gun laws. This is inconvenient to you, so you will ignore it and post up more links to specific events.

[GreenStormCloud]

122. You post some really good graphs. N/T

[aliendroid]

123. thanks

My graphs tend to end discussions. I don't know why those gun grabbers don't like to try and argue against real arguments. If you post a, "well one time this happend" type of argument, they're all over it. But if you post real reason, logic and real data, they ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

[SteveM]

143. Well, to be consistent with my own outlook, I'm not convinced...

"violent crime is reducing thanks to concealed carry." As anyone knows who has read my stuff, I support CCW, the end to most "gun-free zones," and open-carry, but I have seen little convincing evidence that the rise of concealed-carry has had an impact on violent crime. To measure that, one would need to a longitudinal study in which all other factors were wheedled out of the measurement, and such factors as the number of concealed weapons and the "perceived" numbers (taking into account criminal intent), and changing "styles" of violent crime.

Does this mean that there is little use to concealed-carry? Certainly not. It is an eminently useful means of self-defense. But as to social effect, the jury is still out. I do think there are some indications that the over-all re-arming of society over the last 10 years, and the heavy coverage of said, may be holding down the crime rate. But this is an impression based on trying to reconcile why the violent crime rates have remained low in the face of a poor and declining economy, lousy education, unemployment, etc., the "traditional markers" of high(er) crime rates.

[Callisto32]

133. If you loved people, you would not want them under your thumb.

When you propose to remove their ability to own things, you place them under your thumb.

[farmout rightarm]

146. I'm giving 100 to 1 odds you have brown eyes.

...

[gorfle]

9. This will never ever happen.

Better to devote your efforts to halting the retail sale of new guns and ammo.

More guns on your campus is clearly a bad idea.

First of all, what you suggest will never, ever happen, nor should it.

There are firearms in this world, and there will be for the foreseeable future.

As usual, it was people with guns on my campus that stopped the deranged shooter. There's no reason why it could not have been any of us who could have stopped her, possibly before she shot 6 people.

I do not like the sole option being waiting for the police to come and save me. I should not have to be put in this position. It is my Constitutional, individual right to keep and bear arms specifically to defend my life from people like this.

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Thank the Founders. . .

for the 2A!!!!

[sharesunited]

31. Their 2A was for single-shot, front-loading flintlocks to appease skeptical would-be secessionists.

We already fought the American Civil War.

The 2A is obsolete, and today's guns are way too lethal to allow the madness to continue.

[aliendroid]

42. then they would have said...

then they would have said...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and single shot, front-loading, flintlock weapons only, shall not be infringed.

but actually they said

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They said "arms", my semi-auto pistol is exactly that.

[sharesunited]

45. They also said militia and free state.

Neither of which have anything to do with YOU.

[Hoopla Phil]

48. Still kicking around that incorrect definition of militia there Shares? Please

see Heller for clarity.

[sharesunited]

51. That ode to gun love is going down.

[Hoopla Phil]

53. Tisk tisk there Shares. "Gun love"? How quickly those that have no

facts resort to such violations of D.U. decorum. Ha Ha Ha. How predictable.

[Hoopla Phil]

54. Guess I'll have to repeat.

Still kicking around that incorrect definition of militia there Shares? Please see Heller for clarity.

[sharesunited]

60. Heller's wrong. A 5-4 majority that love gun proliferation wrote it to allow that.

Moreover, Heller is not inconsistent with a parallel decision which severely clamps down on commercial production, distribution and sale.

Which for the common good is needed as quickly as Scalia and/or Thomas leave the Court.

[Hoopla Phil]

63. You are free to not like, but it is the supreme law of the land.

At least for federal gun controls - for now.

Heller was correctly cited and well researched. If you find any of the footnotes are factually wrong please post them. LOL. The jury is still out on if we will have "strict scrutiny" or not so you MAY want to hold off on the "common good" argument as that may very well be rendered moot in a few months as well.


You will actually claim that the logic and reasoning in this paragraph is wrong?

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If so PLEASE, for the love of Dog, do not try to defend the First Amendment. LOL

[sharesunited]

64. Shall I defend the limitations on the First Amendment?

Limitations on the 2A likewise need to catch up with the reality of the harm being done in its name.

[Hoopla Phil]

66. Guess I need to repeat again:

You will actually claim that the logic and reasoning in this paragraph is wrong?

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If so PLEASE, for the love of Dog, do not try to defend the First Amendment. LOL


So please tell me, do you actually claim that the logic and reasoning in the above paragraph from Heller is wrong?

[sharesunited]

75. Oh yes, it's very wrong in that it willfully turns a blind eye to the obvious.

To wit, that the RKBA is the only so-called right which can deprive you of all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.

And that modern methods of killing you so conveniently, efficiently, and en masse weigh against Constitutional protection for any such claim of right. Certainly beyond any claim originally envisioned.

The balance of interests fails. The danger exceeds the benefit.

No one needs that kind of killing power.

So why insist that anyone does?

[rrneck]

91. No one needs that kind of killing power.

What solution do you offer someone who has little or no power in the face of an assault by someone who has a great deal of it?

You had to know this question was coming.

You lack sufficient compassion for others to merit martyrdom.

[Hoopla Phil]

92. So you have opinions that differ from those that wrote the constitution.

Fortunately for me that your opinions do not out weigh my 2A rights. You don't like it but that is too bad. You can campaign for the repeal of the 2A but until it is repealed it IS the supreme law of the land.

I also find it interesting that you side step the logic of the Heller paragraph that I quoted. You did not give ANY reasoning that their logic was flawed on the merits. You only regurgitated the Brady talking points and relied on your "feeeelinnnngs". Fortunately law is not based on "feeelinnnngs" but on facts. The facts are there in the Heller footnotes. Facts that you do not dispute but ignore and sidestep.

[aliendroid]

108. my 2nd amendment

In authoritarian land you get to redefine what our constitution means and force it on others but not in the USA.

I determined that my second amendment gives me the right to own and carry guns; therefore, I will do so if I decide to.

If you feel the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to own and carry guns, you are free to refrain from doing so

But you will not redefine what the 2A means for me, do you understand that?

If I decide that I will not own guns, I will not own guns. If I decide that I will own guns, I WILL. If you decide that I will not own guns, I still will base my ownership of guns on my decision because I am free. This freedom that we have in the USA is inconvenient to you, you should move to the UK or Australia.

[gorfle]

140. The RKBA is the only so-called right which can insure all your other rights.

To wit, that the RKBA is the only so-called right which can deprive you of all your other rights.

By killing your stubborn hide.

The right to keep and bear arms is ALSO the only so-called right which can INSURE you all of your other rights. This is why our founders wanted them in the hands of the people, so that the people could not be oppressed!

And that modern methods of killing you so conveniently, efficiently, and en masse weigh against Constitutional protection for any such claim of right. Certainly beyond any claim originally envisioned.

The balance of interests fails. The danger exceeds the benefit.

Says someone who has never seriously considered the possibility, nor suffered under tyranny.

No one needs that kind of killing power.

So why insist that anyone does?

The founders needed that kind of killing power. Countless oppressed people have needed that kind of killing power.

You simply live with a false sense of security believing that it could never happen to you.

[Callisto32]

136. What about my good, or your good, or your neighbor's good?

Don't forget about people in your zeal to protect the "common." YOU do not get to decide what is good for the "common." While we are on the subject of the common(s), why don't you look up the tragedy thereof, and see why making rules for the "common" cannot work, at least not the way you intend them.

[cowman]

129. HaHaHaHaHa

just asnine statement and wishful thinking there Shares?

[Mike K]

68. You are quite mistaken:

The Militia Act of 1903, which remains in force, stipulates the American Militia as consisting of every able-bodied male citizen between age 17 and 45.

And in case you're under the impression that the National Guard is a militia, it isn't. The National Guard is a standing army under the direct control of government. If you are an able-bodied male between 17 and 45 you are considered to be a member of the American Militia, so I would advise you to obtain an effective infantry grade firearm and keep it in a closet -- just in case.

[sharesunited]

93. Sure thing. But who would I supposedly be fighting besides others similarly situated?

See what an anachronism all that nonsense is?

[gorfle]

139. But those militias no longer exist.

They also said militia and free state. Neither of which have anything to do with YOU.

As you well know, because you have been corrected on this forum many times, the militias that existed in our founders' day no longer exist today. The state militias were federalized in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. At that point they stopped functioning as counters to centralized military power and became adjuncts to it.

Also as you well know, the Dick Act created the Unorganized Militia in addition to the National Guard, which contains all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia (National Guard).

So you are incorrect on both accounts.

[X_Digger]

44. Are you gonna make me post the link again?

Fine..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

"It fired a .51 caliber ball at a velocity similar to that of a modern .45 ACP and it had a tubular, gravity-fed magazine with a capacity of 20 balls." (The magazine was detachable, as well.)

[sharesunited]

49. That oddity was not in general use and not what they had in mind.

[Hoopla Phil]

56. Are you saying it needs to be

in common use, such as the M-16 rifle? LOL Ha Ha Ha. You REALLY need to read Heller.

[X_Digger]

57. Really? Are you a necromancer now?

Got anything to back up the assertion that they only intended for the second amendment to apply to extant technology of 1792?

[AtheistCrusader]

70. An entire nation's army used it.

It was not widely adopted in the US, but it was known, and many examples were used in the United States.

Nor did the 2nd apply to any specific technology, like the 1st does not apply to any specific technology. It simply didn't matter. Modern guns fit with 'arms' just as you typing on this forum counts as 'speech'.

[gorfle]

141. Why don't you tell us what they had in mind?

That oddity was not in general use and not what they had in mind.

Why don't you tell us what they had in mind? And I don't mean technologically. I mean philosophically.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. Some just refuse to learn. How progressive is that?

[Hoopla Phil]

46. And that wonderful living breathing document (The Constitution) adapts

to the modern times and modern arms.

[Hoopla Phil]

61. From Heller. Please read and learn.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Freedom of the press was about moveable type printing presses too.

Turn in your deadly assault-computer.



:sarcasm:

[GreenStormCloud]

124. 2A is STILL in the Constitution, even though you don't like it.

It still has the force of law, and will soon be strengthened. You can work to get it repealed if you want to. We will laugh at your efforts.

[Callisto32]

134. Muzzle loading.....

[Callisto32]

135. Magazine fed, repeating rifles existed at the time of the ratification.

They were pre-charged pneumatic rifles, yes. That did not stop the Austrians from using them to kill people.

[gorfle]

138. No, the 2A was for military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians.

Their 2A was for single-shot, front-loading flintlocks to appease skeptical would-be secessionists.

No, the second amendment was for military-grade small arms to be in the hands of civilians so that civilians could eliminate or at least counter a centralized military force.

We already fought the American Civil War.

Your assertion is that because there was one failed rebellion that no other rebellion would ever be necessary nor successful.

You have no basis from which to make that assertion.

The 2A is obsolete, and today's guns are way too lethal to allow the madness to continue.

Fortunately, the law disagrees with you.

[SteveM]

144. Yes, I noticed wood chips & ink spilling from your "free press" onto my keyboard. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

153. why not outlaw stockbrokers?

Bernie Madoff ruined more lives with a pen than most holdup men did with a pistol.

[proteus_lives]

14. He's thinking of self-defense.

Not stripping Americans of their rights.

[aliendroid]

16. are you kidding

this sharesunited guy is anti-gun

[proteus_lives]

22. I'm talking about the OP not SU.

[GreenStormCloud]

125. He is also somewhat entertaining.

With the new civility enforcement, many of our anti-gun posters have sharply reduced their postings. Shares is the only one left who keeps up a high post count.

[spin]

35. As has been explained to you many times ...

halting the retail sales of new guns and ammo is a poor idea full of flaws.

For some reason you believe that firearms would become cherished collectibles. This might possibly happen many years into the future. True, the price of the existing firearms would increase and perhaps double but remember that there are somewhere around 300 million firearms in this country. Used firearms in good condition sell for far less than new firearms. In many cases if your plan went into effect, a good used firearm would sell for the same price that a new one does today. Obviously, the price of new firearms hasn't hurt sales as even in this recession new firearm sales have hit new records.

Many gun owners already own a significant supply of ammo. I know shooters who own 10,000 rounds or much more in different calibers for their firearms. Providing that this ammo is not subjected to extremes in temperature or excessive moisture it will last indefinitely. I have fired ammo that was 40 or 50 years old without any problem or major decrease in accuracy.

But since your plan involves halting the retail sale of ammo, many shooters will save their available ammo rather than run off several hundred rounds in a trip to the range. Most shooters own more than one firearm and people who are into the hobby may easily own 10, 20 or even 50 weapons. Since they will be saving their ammo rather than shooting it, they may decide to sell a few of their weapons to interested buyers. Quality used handguns that have been properly cared for are not like used cars. Even if used regularly they rarely wear out. I own firearms such as S&W revolvers or Colt 1911 semi auto pistols that I have used for 20 years. These weapons will be inherited by my grandsons and possibly even their children or grand children. I have fired more rounds through a couple of these handguns than most people who own firearms will ever shoot in a lifetime. Yet if I were to show you one of these firearms, you would believe it was brand new.

So merely stopping the sales of new firearms will not cause all sales to cease. The supply is sufficient to meet the demand and the price of a used firearm will stay in a reasonable range for many years.

It's also very easy to reload ammunition. Powder and primers are easy to store and you can make your own bullets from lead. Reloading equipment is fairly cheap. I started out in my reloading hobby with a kit that today costs only $33.98.



A more advanced reloading system such as the RCBS Rock Chucker Master Reloading Kit will run slightly above $300 and can reload a large variety of handgun and rifle ammo with different dies which run about $30 for each caliber.



Or if you would like to reload ammo at a much faster rate you could move up to this quality reloader from Dillon Precision. With one set of dies for one caliber this reloading machine would only set you back around $400. You can easily produce 200 - 300 rounds per hour.


Dillon RL550B

A good machinist can easily make a firearm from scratch. The instructions and drawings are easy to find.

I could also point out that outlawing the sale of new firearms and ammo would only create a black market for these items. Outlawing alcohol during prohibition proved a futile task and our current war on drugs is at the very best a total failure. The black market for firearms would probably make fully automatic weapons smuggled in from other countries readily available. We would have a far more serious problem with firearms than we do today.

You may feel that you have found the ultimate solution to the problem of violence caused by firearms in this country. You do post this idea often. If you dd have a workable idea, I would oppose it on the grounds that firearms have many uses including target shooting and hunting as well as self defense. I would point out that in all reality, firearms in the hands of honest citizens do far more good than evil. And I would suggest that you turn your efforts to trying to stop the sales of firearms to criminals or to punished violent convicted felons severely if they are caught carrying a firearm.

[aliendroid]

47. I got a lee single stage

And I make my own 9mm parabellum at this time, but I'm looking to get the 45acp dies, only problem is I don't have a 1911 yet.

But loading ammo is fun just make sure you do not over pack the powder. I got some bullet casting molds for 9mm also. Making your own bullets is very good on the bank account.

[spin]

77. I used a single stage RCBS Rock Chucker press ...

in the days when I was reloading. (I still have all the equipment.)

When I dropped powder into the cases, I was very careful. I would set up the powder measure calibrate my powder scale and measure the first ten loads I dropped. I then would double check the calibration of my powder scale and measure the eleventh load. I would measure every tenth load after that. The filled cases went into a reloading tray. When the tray was full, I would take a flashlight and run it up and down the rows of cases, comparing the powder level in each case to the ones beside it.



Obviously, I didn't crank out a lot of ammo in a short period of time, but I never did have a double charged cartridge or one without powder. I reloaded around 5000 rounds a year for 20 years. A competitive shooter can easily reload many times that amount which is why they prefer the faster progressive presses.

I never got into casting bullets but many of my shooting buddies did.

[aliendroid]

126. it's really not hard to avoid putting in too much powder

when I measure powder, I do about 50 rounds at a time and after I get them all in the reloading tray I look at each one comparing to the neighbors to see if there is a difference. I tried double charging one and it was very obvious, I then put .5 grain too much in one and it was also obvious and this is with titegroup powder.

But with the progressives you can double charge and miss it if you are distracted, that's why I started with a single stage and I like doing it that way, it feels like I'm doing it more by hand.

[virginia mountainman]

55. Spin...

According to military manuals...You can make "ersatz" gun powder and primers, using matches....

So, yea, their will be a nice supply of guns and ammo, well into the future..

Only folks, like Shares, actually believe they can "un-invent" something, and it "POOF" goes away forever.

[rd_kent]

59. Cleary? Hardly, yet you file to support that claim.

[Mike K]

67. "Better to devote your efforts to halting the retail sale of new guns and ammo."

There are no retail sales of hard drugs yet they are readily available on the underground market. Why do you suppose the same situation will not exist if guns are legally unavailable? Did alcohol prohibition prevent ready access to booze?

The OP has the right idea. It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

[cowman]

128. Ahhhhh Shares

there you go again making an ass of yourself. Everytime you post you just show to us how ridiculous you and your ilk are. Your side is losing the 2nd amend. argument and you are just pissed off about it, but go ahead and keep deluding yourself

[Fumesucker]

6. You're wrong..

At the 2008 UU church shooting in Knoxville, unarmed church members disarmed and held the shooter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

Of course that was a bunch of cowardly liberals who mostly didn't even believe in Jeebus, if they had they would have been going to a *real* church..

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. Then again, two people w/ guns did stop *this* school shooting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Granted, any possible future rampage may not work like that, but better to have and not need than need and not have...

[Fumesucker]

18. People with guns usually *start* the shootings too..

I was just pointing out that speaking in absolutes is rarely a good idea..

Sturgeon's First Law: Nothing is ever absolutely so.

[aliendroid]

17. why the bigoted statement

Why are liberals not able to believe in Jesus and why is this not a real church?

[Fumesucker]

21. You should have your sarcasmometer recalibrated..

It's clearly been dropped or something..

[aliendroid]

26. then don't do it

wow, you edited your post, what happend to the Jeebuus and the that's not a realz church because it liberal stuff you had before, yes you were sarcastic and talking as if you were a christian trying to make them look bad.


If you don't want to be called out, don't do it. I take everything literal here. You are trying to make some stupid political statement against someone else's perfectly valid and acceptable political view, such as being a republican or libertarian or christian, all acceptable values to have and you don't need to make such ignorant, bigoted and intolerant statements in an attempt to make those people into bad guys, because they are good people also.

tolerance, try it.

[Fumesucker]

30. If I edited my post it would have a red text at the top saying so..

And in fact the text is still there..

See, I edited this post and it has red text at the top..

After unarmed church goers disarmed a shooter I then called them cowards, you can't get much more blatantly sarcastic than that.

Edited once more to add: If you plan on staying on the intertubez you should definitely become more attuned to snark and sarcasm because it's a regular feature and often not as blatant and over the top as what I just did..

Also check out Poe's Law..

[aliendroid]

43. aight

alright alright, it didn't load when I was looking at it that time, sorry for the misunderstanding

[Fumesucker]

58. That's OK.. It happens to all of us from time to time.. n/t

[gorfle]

23. Good for them.

I'm glad to see that unarmed people were able to stand up to that shotgun-wielding lunatic.

Myself, I would prefer the option to fight back on a little more equal grounds.

[Fumesucker]

28. There was a situation some months ago where a plain clothes officer was sent into a school..

And acted like he was going to shoot up the school, it was some kind of bizarre readiness test or something and was done before school started in the summer.

If one of the teachers there had been armed it could well have ended up a real tragedy.

The officer's lucky someone didn't jab a pencil in one of his kidneys or something anyway, I would have if I'd had the chance.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Link?

I find it unlikely any police department could be so stupid.

[Fumesucker]

81. The original story has been deleted at the link but here is the DU thread..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3882977

Turns out I misremembered and it was an actor not a cop, mea culpa.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. I can only find stories about it on places like Infowars and the like

but man, if that happened, holy shit. The 'actor' is lucky to be alive.

Poor kids and teachers..

[Fumesucker]

117. I went to the original link at the time of that post..

The story was definitely there, I'm almost certain it happened.

When I was searching for that story I found several similar ones where someone who was basically innocent could well have ended up shot if there had been a lot of armed people around..

I'm really conflicted about the whole gun thing, I knew two kids growing up who either shot themselves or were shot by another kid and I was damn near shot myself, I realize it's anecdotal but that's the kind of thing that works on you emotionally.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. I don't consider that innocent.

If a police officer happened to be in the area (like an off-duty officer picking up their kid) and shot that guy (police may concealed carry anywhere) I would feel no remorse whatsoever.

If a teacher beat him to death with a chair, no sympathy.

That was the dumbest thing ever.

[Fumesucker]

132. I doubt it was the guy's own idea..

Sounds like something that was dreamed up by the school board..

"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board." -Mark Twain

[Merchant Marine]

34. Only after he emptied the shotgun...

They were lucky he chose a shotgun, because the tube must be reloaded round by round and gave them a large window to rush and disarm him. At that point he was as disarmed as they are, because an empty gun is just an awkward club. Context is key.

Here's a counterpoint, the attempted massacre at the New Haven Church. Armed man kills two in the church parking lot, enters the building and is shot dead by a woman CCW holder providing security. The reason it was an *attempted* massacre is because he was stopped so soon, the assailant had a rifle, two handguns and plenty of ammunition.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

[Fumesucker]

40. I was responding to this statement..

"The bottom line is that every single time there is one of these shootings it is someone with a gun that stops them, and those people are never there when the shooting starts."

It's not "every single time", which is what I meant to convey.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Quick, post another one.

We'll wait.

[Onlooker]

8. I think your a little traumatized

The odds of a fatal school shooting are pretty remote, and I've always felt that a person of good conscience will always be a disadvantage to a person with no conscience. In the split second that you might evaluate the situation, an evil perp will sniff you out and pull the trigger.

Also, allowing students to carry concealed weapons will simply mean more weapons in school. I'm not sure that's a recipe for safety.

At any rate, this was a horrific crime that for you and many others literally hit too close to home. I hope the UAH community finds a way to recover from this trauma.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Students in Utah and Washington can, and there doesn't seem to be problems

Why not allow it in Alabama?

[gorfle]

19. Except we know this isn't true.

I think your a little traumatized

Mostly I feel a little angry. I'm angry that as a condition of going to school here in Huntsville, the only option for people pursuing high-tech educations, we have to agree to be defenseless as a condition of being a student there.

The odds of a fatal school shooting are pretty remote,

The odds of a fatal school shooting ARE pretty remote. So is having a flat tire, or a house fire. Yet I have homeowner's insurance, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and spare tires. Why? Because the insurance is so damn cheap compared to the consequences of not having it in the rare chance you need it.

and I've always felt that a person of good conscience will always be a disadvantage to a person with no conscience. In the split second that you might evaluate the situation, an evil perp will sniff you out and pull the trigger.

But we know this is not always true. There have been numerous examples posted here of people fighting back against criminals even when the criminal was pointing a firearm directly at them. There was one incident posted here recently where it was an elderly man and woman held at gunpoint and the elderly man fought back and saved himself and his wife!

I have no doubt that someone who plans mass murder has a tactical advantage against his unsuspecting victims. All I'm asking for is a fucking chance. A chance is always better than no chance. I am a law-abiding citizen. I have never had a criminal record more severe than a moving violation. I could carry a concealed weapon most anywhere else in Alabama, but not on my school campus. Why not? Am I somehow unable to responsibly carry a firearm on campus when I can clearly do so down main street?

Also, allowing students to carry concealed weapons will simply mean more weapons in school. I'm not sure that's a recipe for safety.

The alternative is that the only weapons in school will belong to people with no regard for rules or laws, just as we saw today. Clearly the rules against firearms on campus did not slow down Dr. Amy Bishop one bit.

The fact is, CCW permit holders are far safer than your average citizen. They are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than your average citizen. There is absolutely no reason to think that having such lawful citizens being able to carry firearms on a school campus would make them any more dangerous than they clearly are not anywhere else.

At any rate, this was a horrific crime that for you and many others literally hit too close to home. I hope the UAH community finds a way to recover from this trauma.

Thank you.

[Frances]

20. Agree with your post, Onlooker

I don't teach at this time, but if I were still teaching, I would rather take my chances with a lone nut than with a classroom filled with concealed carriers. The probability of a lone nut shooting up the classroom would be very slim, whereas the probability of a carrier having a bad day and acting out with his/her gun would be higher.

[aliendroid]

25. one inconvenient truth though

concealed carriers do not shoot up schools or other locations ever. Just doesn't happen.

If it does, I'm sure you have evidence.

[gorfle]

27. Why do you feel that way?

I don't teach at this time, but if I were still teaching, I would rather take my chances with a lone nut than with a classroom filled with concealed carriers. The probability of a lone nut shooting up the classroom would be very slim, whereas the probability of a carrier having a bad day and acting out with his/her gun would be higher.

Why do you feel this way? I think you are laboring under a false understanding of concealed carry permit holders.

Statistically (and the actual data has been posted here many times before, you can look it up), CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than your average citizen. This is hardly surprising when you think about it. CCW permit holders clearly don't have felony backgrounds or they would not BE CCW permit holders. They also have a high respect for the law as they demonstrate by going to the trouble and expense of conforming to the bureaucracy required to obtain a CCW permit.

CCW permit holders are also less likely to cause collateral damage in a shootout than police officers.

Further most murderers do not just "have a bad day and act out". Most murderers have an extensive prior criminal background, which would preclude them from being CCW permit holders.

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

The idea that CCW permit holders are unstable or dangerous does not hold up to statistical scrutiny.

[Frances]

89. Have you ever been a teacher?

I have seen young people lose their tempers over trivial things and resort to physical contact. I am certainly glad that guns were not permitted in the schools where I taught.

I grew up in a community where almost every family had at least one legal gun in the house. I told a group of people in a suburb in another state that I personally knew at least 10 people who were killed by someone with a gun. The suburbanites asked, "What kind of people did you know?" They assumed that the dead people were all from very poor backgrounds. That wasn't true. It's just that when otherwise stable people get angry and there's a gun handy, there is a greater potential for death.

One victim answered the door to discover his son-in-law demanding to see his estranged wife. When the victim replied that the wife didn't want to come to the door, the husband shot into the glass door. The shattering glass cut the victim and he bled to death. My mother said that the glass killed him, not the gun.

I'm realistic enough to know that guns will always be a huge part of the culture of my native state. And when I was growing up, many people would have gone hungry if hunters in the family hadn't killed a deer or other game.

But honestly, all the cases involving guns that I know about were sad ones, where the killer regretted his actions, even though the murdered person was no saint. I remember seeing the mother of one murder victim crying over her son's grave (I was visiting my father's grave at the time). Her son was a jerk and had unnecessarily antagonized the man who killed him, but the mother was still grieving, and the killer was in prison.

I don't personally know of a single case where a person with a gun saved an innocent person from harm.

[gorfle]

90. What's stoping them?

Have you ever been a teacher?

No, but I've been going to school my entire life, and I'm pushing 40 years old.

I have seen young people lose their tempers over trivial things and resort to physical contact. I am certainly glad that guns were not permitted in the schools where I taught.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF ANY OF THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE WERE SO INCLINED THAT THE SCHOOL RULES ON FIREARMS WOULD STOP THEM?

Honestly. Whoop-t-doo. The school has a rule that guns are not permitted. Has this ever stopped any school shooter? Did it stop Klebold and Harris? Did it stop Cho? Did it stop Bishop?

NO!

The rules are not going to do ONE DAMN THING to stop people bent on doing wrong. All they do is make the people bent on doing right be defenseless against those bent on doing wrong.

I'm realistic enough to know that guns will always be a huge part of the culture of my native state. And when I was growing up, many people would have gone hungry if hunters in the family hadn't killed a deer or other game.

don't personally know of a single case where a person with a gun saved an innocent person from harm.

And so because of your lack of personal experience you would deny anyone the ability to even have a chance to do so?

[Frances]

96. The best I can tell

your argument is that you live in fear that someone will attack you with a gun. If that happens, you want to have a concealed gun on your person so you can have a shoot out with the bad guy(s).

My argument is that I don't live in fear that some nut will come into a public place and starting shooting at me. It's possible that could happen, but it's far more likely that I will be struck by lightning. It's also more likely that I could get caught in the cross-fire between two people carrying concealed weapons who got mad at each other and started shooting.

By the way, statistically, people who have guns in their homes are more likely to kill a friend or family member by accident or in anger than they are to protect themselves from a criminal.

But to each his/her own.

[gorfle]

99. The "fear" canard.

your argument is that you live in fear that someone will attack you with a gun. If that happens, you want to have a concealed gun on your person so you can have a shoot out with the bad guy(s).

I am faced with the reality that people can and do commit mass murder by entering places like my school and shooting people who are stripped of their ability to fight back in any meaningful way. I want the ability that I am entitled to by law to fight back.

I don't live in fear that someone will attack me with a gun, any more than I live in fear of house fire, flat tires, or car accidents. Yet I have smoke detectors, insurance, fire extinguishers, spare tires, and seat belts, all of which I use in the rare occasion that I might need them.

Being prepared does not mean I live in fear.

My argument is that I don't live in fear that some nut will come into a public place and starting shooting at me. It's possible that could happen, but it's far more likely that I will be struck by lightning.

Do you have homeowner's insurace? Life insurance? Car insurance? Smoke detectors? Fire extinguishers? First aid kits? Do you wear your seat belts? The odds of you needing those things are pretty low, also. But I have them because it's damn cheap insurance in the rare occasion that one of those things are needed.

It's also more likely that I could get caught in the cross-fire between two people carrying concealed weapons who got mad at each other and started shooting.

CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage in a shootout than police are. I assume you don't have any problem with having police respond to these crimes? So why not people who have been demonstrated to cause less collateral damage than them?

By the way, statistically, people who have guns in their homes are more likely to kill a friend or family member by accident or in anger than they are to protect themselves from a criminal.

This is false conclusion. Please read this essay on the criminology of guns:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

The overriding determining factor of gun crime is not whether or not you have a gun in your home, it's whether or not you have a prior criminal background.

Since people with criminal backgrounds have homes, friends, and family members, they skew your assumption that it is the keeping of a firearm in a house that increases the likelihood of killing a friend or family member.

If you correct for the criminal element, law-abiding people are not likely to be involved in violent crime at all.

[Frances]

102. You have the right to your opinion

but your arguments don't match my personal experience or the statistics I have seen.

For example, when I was in 6th grade, a classmate took out his parents' gun and was playing with it when he accidentally shot himself. He'd never been in any trouble at school, much less with the law.

Another example concerns a mother (who grew up a couple of blocks from my house) whose husband had molested their daughter. The woman decided to give her husband another chance, but then they had an argument and she shot and killed him. The woman had never committed any crime whatsoever up to this point. Obviously, the husband should have been tried in court and been punished. But the woman was so emotionally involved that she took the law into her own hands. She has to live with the fact that she killed the man. It would have been much easier on her and her children if the punishment had come from someone else.

Yet another example is of a classmate who got mad at his brother and then shot him. Neither brother had ever had trouble with the law. But now the sister of the brothers has one brother dead and another brother in prison.

One young man from my very small town had never been involved in crime. But he was visiting a young woman whose father had given her a gun to use for protection when she got an apartment near the college she attended. The young man asked to see the gun; then he started playing Russian roulette. I think this was his way of committing suicide, and he succeeded. It wasn't the young woman's fault, but she will carry the image of this shooting with her all her life.

You seem to think that the world is made up of good guys and bad guys. I've given you a few of the examples I've been associated with that make me believe that good guys who have never been in trouble with the law can cause a lot of harm to themselves and to others.

[gorfle]

105. I just provided you with the statistics.

but your arguments don't match my personal experience or the statistics I have seen.

You are relying on personal anecdotes to frame your worldview.

I provided an article that clearly demonstrates who is most likely to commit murder with a firearm - people with extensive criminal records make up the vast majority of such people.

Firearm accidents do happen, but as the data that has been posted here many times shows, firearm accident rates continue to trend downward, as they have for something like the last 20 years.

I've given you a few of the examples I've been associated with that make me believe that good guys who have never been in trouble with the law can cause a lot of harm to themselves and to others.

Personal anecdotes are touching, but are not statistical data. The data indicates that most people who commit murder with firearms have extensive prior criminal backgrounds.

Please read the article I cited.

[rd_kent]

111. When will you realize that "personal experience" has no bearing at all on reality.

Just because YOU experienced or did not experience a certain type of event, that does NOT mean that the rest of the world has similar experiences.


Go have a look at the DOJ website and look at the FACTS, you can see for yourself what the REALITY of the situation is. Then come on back and lets talk.

[Euromutt]

142. Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?

I'll give you a quote from the Wikipedia page on confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias):

Confirmation bias (or myside bias) is a tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. People can reinforce their existing attitudes by selectively collecting new evidence, by interpreting evidence in a biased way or by selectively recalling information from memory. Some psychologists use "confirmation bias" for any of these three cognitive biases, while others restrict the term to selective collection of evidence, using assimilation bias for biased interpretation.

Now, when you say:

<...> your arguments don't match my personal experience or the statistics I have seen.

I cannot help suspecting that there may be confirmation bias at work, and that you have remembered those experiences and studies that confirm your pre-existing attitude toward the private possession (and carrying) of firearms while discarding those that contradicted it.

Also, if you don't mind my asking, what kind of teacher are you? Because when it comes to CCW permit holders, we are by definition talking about people aged 21 or over. We're not talking about middle or high school students, or even college freshmen and sophomores here.

[rd_kent]

110. You could not be MORE wrong.

By the way, statistically, people who have guns in their homes are more likely to kill a friend or family member by accident or in anger than they are to protect themselves from a criminal.


Please, show me where you got THAT tidbit of information please. If you got it from the Kellerman study, then you are only repeating THOROUGHLY debunked stats.

[SteveM]

147. Fear canard used as a perjorative...

"your argument is that you live in fear that someone will attack you with a gun. If that happens, you want to have a concealed gun on your person so you can have a shoot out with the bad guy(s).

This is a gross distortion of the poster's comments. "...so you can have a shoot out with the bad guy(s)." I am sure the poster does NOT want to have a "shoot out." The implication here is that you see concealed carry as nothing more than enabling those who have this desire for a shoot out. That is unfair and not true. Further, most people who have guns for self-defense don't "live in fear." They look at the risk in society and act accordingly; in fact, this action LESSENS fear.

"My argument is that I don't live in fear that some nut will come into a public place and starting shooting at me. It's possible that could happen, but it's far more likely that I will be struck by lightning. It's also more likely that I could get caught in the cross-fire between two people carrying concealed weapons who got mad at each other and started shooting."

You statement that "I don't live in fear that some nut will come into a public place and start shooting..." may describe your mental state -- just as it describes the mental state of most gun-owners -- but that has little to do with self-defense. You add the bit about getting caught in a cross-fire, but what kind of evidence do you have that supports "It's more likely?"

Finally, by the way, the old disproved and junked studies purporting to show how "...statistically, people who have guns in their homes are more likely to kill a friend or family member by accident or in anger..." have caused even most gun-controllers to back away from that argument. Who wants to be embarrassed by a study which can't be peer-reviewed?

[aliendroid]

109. can kids buy guns?

You probably taught children and last time I checked they don't get to buy guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Simpy false. Statistics have prove this tired old argument wrong over and over and over.

[rd_kent]

112. Did you just make that up right here in the spot?

whereas the probability of a carrier having a bad day and acting out with his/her gun would be higher.



Please. show us where you got that idea from. Go ahead, we will wait.....

[aliendroid]

24. herd immunity

Ever heard of herd immunity. Not everyone needs a measles vaccine, once you have enough immune in the population the disease can't spread. Not everyone needs to conceal carry a gun, but if enough do the bad guys elect to not make the attempt. Like Murphy's law, if you don't prepare you will be a victim, but if you do you will not be attacked. This has some truth, if the bad guy thinks you may be armed because it is known people with permits carry on campus, they will think twice.

This person has decided to step up to the plate and protect him/herself and others.

Very admirable.

[Merchant Marine]

37. No, concealed mean *concealed*

A concealed weapons holder has the drop on an openly armed perp in that sort of scenario, because the perp does not know who has a gun.

[aliendroid]

41. yeah

the idea that someone may have a gun scares the crap out of them, hence the reduced violent crime rate.

[PavePusher]

62. Ummm, not actually.

A CCW holder will almost always be reactive, and thus by definition, not "have the drop" on the perpetrator.

However, CCW's who do have to use their firearms have a remarkable success rate.

[GreenStormCloud]

127. You need to reevaluate the tactical situation.

In the split second that you might evaluate the situation, an evil perp will sniff you out and pull the trigger.
The discussion is specifically about school shootings. The evil shooter can't watch everybody in the class at once. He will be looking at the next victim, and likely have tunnel vision. An armed student would be able to draw and shoot. The victim student would still have a chance by moving while drawing, although the victim student would be at a strong disadvantage. So the only way the evil shooter has an advantage is if he happens to target the concealed carry student first.

In street encounters, by practicing situational awareness, the bad guy can usually be stopped early and the CCWer can be ready. The bad guy then reads the body language of the CCWer and breaks off the attack before he actually attacks. That is what happened (short version)when my wife used her gun to prevent herself from being murdered.

Without situational awareness, a gun is of little help.

[aliendroid]

33. Feel good about your decision, look at the evidence of its effect on violent crime.

As time passes the rate of increase in population with concealed carry available has not only reduced violent crime rate but has caused every rise and dip in the curve starting in 1991.

[tularetom]

36. If you favor permits to carry a concealed handgun, you favor gun control.

Sorry, but that's the simple truth.

The 2nd amendment does not give the government the right to decide who will be allowed to carry a gun.

We all are directly and explicitly guaranteed that right by the constitution and its amendment.

You don't need no steenking permit to carry a gun to your classes. You already have that right and you have had it since the day you were born.

Yes, Dr Amy Bishop had that same right. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, work to change it change it, but don't limit the intent of the constitution.

Handgun permits = gun control.

[aliendroid]

39. but consider this...

I'm not going to stop you if you decide to make it legal for any person who can legally own a gun to conceal carry. Concealed carry is a move in the right direction, a move toward less gun control because before concealed carry there was no carry at all. CCW is a reduction in the unconstitutional control on firearms. Like the steps taken to get to total gun confiscation, concealed carry is a step toward no gun restrictions, we moved the ball down the field in our favor, we may decide to keep moving it or maybe not, I'm not going to lie to you like the gun-nabbers do, we probably will move toward fewer gun restrictions and keep going in that direction for a while. Criminals should start looking for jobs.

[Fumesucker]

82. The really successful criminals won't have to worry at all..

They wear suits and ties and carry a briefcase rather than a gun.

And they steal far more money and destroy far more people than any criminal with a gun.

Mario Puzo made that observation.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. One of the reasons I call the NRA a heap of shit.

They've passed more GUN CONTROL laws than the brady bunch.

[gorfle]

87. I do not favor permits for concealed carry.

I do NOT favor permits for concealed carry. I wish I did not have to get permission from the government to exercise my right to keep and BEAR arms.

But that's the way it is today. I would prefer a Vermont-style arrangement, but it's not an option for law-abiding people nearly everywhere else.

[struggle4progress]

65. As a former professor, who has been threatened by students more than once,

I do not think anyone is their right mind would be enthusiastic about a bunch of late adolescents walking about armed on campus. I once had a student hand in a suicide note with a test -- and I'm glad that in that case the student didn't have immediate access to a gun. The potentially stressful campus environment is not an ideal place to pack

[AtheistCrusader]

74. If that student was 21 years of age, he or she DID have access to guns.

Couple hundred bucks, if that.
Under 21, there's always going out Cobain style.


I hope your student got the help he or she needed.

[gorfle]

85. No one is advocating "late adolescents" walking about with guns.

I do not think anyone is their right mind would be enthusiastic about a bunch of late adolescents walking about armed on campus.

First of all, no one is advocating that "late adolescents" be able to walk around with guns.

In nearly all states, the legal requirement for obtaining a CCW permit is 21 years old.

The hell of it is, in Alabama at least, it is already legal for non-students and non-faculty to carry concealed firearms on campus! There is no law against it. But if you are a student or teacher there, they can fire you or expel you for it.

I once had a student hand in a suicide note with a test -- and I'm glad that in that case the student didn't have immediate access to a gun.

But what stopped that student from having a gun? Nothing.

Someone who is bent on suicide will find a way. Someone who is bent on murder-suicide will also find a way. Rules or laws banning guns will not stop such people. Look at Virginia Tech with Cho. Rules and regulations didn't slow him down one bit.

Obviously it didn't slow down Dr. Amy Bishop, either.

The potentially stressful campus environment is not an ideal place to pack.

Yet on campuses where CCW carry is allowed, there has never been an incident to my knowledge.

[struggle4progress]

116. There are over 4000 two and four year higher education institutions in the US, and on average (over

the last 20 years) there has been a fatal shooting incident at less than one institution per year. So crudely we expect about a 1 in 4000 chance of an incident at any given institution in any year. Since rather few institutions that allow students to carry on campus, hardly any incidents are expected at such institutions anyway

<edit: corrected typo, arithmetic>

[K8-EEE]

76. Every time there's a shooting there's a plea for MORE MORE MORE guns

It doesn't make a lick of sense to me. And I've been robbed at gunpoint, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if I had a gun. The perp always has the element of surprise. Like all the profs are going to be sitting at a meeting with a gun in one hand. It's not that simple.

I wish we didn't have such a love for guns in the US. "guns give me power, safety" is a short putt from "guns solve my problems" "guns will show them" and all the other psycho stuff whoever does such a thing must thing.

[depakid]

78. And from a university student, no less

Fear trumps reason in America these days.

[spin]

94. Am I right in assuming that you believe that university students...

are intelligent and because they are intelligent they should realize that carrying a firearm is a bad idea?

There is an organization called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus with a web page at:
http://concealedcampus.org /

It may surprise you but I have known many people with college degrees who enjoyed shooting and had concealed carry licenses.

Obviously their colleges must have failed in the mission to brainwash all students that guns are BAD.

[rd_kent]

95. Youre right, depakid, fear does trump reason in this country.

Thats why we have some of the most asinine and uneffective gun control laws...they were all based on fear, not reason.


Just like fear trumped reason in Australia...and the UK....

[gorfle]

100. I think you need to re-evaluate who is the one afraid here.

Fear trumps reason in America these days.

Does fear trump reason when I carry a spare tire in my car?

Does fear trump reason when I buy a life insurance policy?

Does fear trump reason when I install smoke detectors or change their batteries every year?

Does fear trump reason when I buckle my seat belt every time I get in a car?

Does fear trump reason when I keep a first aid kit?

Of course not. Reasonable people look at these activities as reasonable precautions against the rare eventuality that they will be needed. Why? Because they are cheap compared to the consequences of not having them and needing them.

Owning a firearm for protection is no different.

The people who DO have fear driving them are people trying to prevent my ability to carry a firearm for protection.

Those people don't fear my spare tires, they don't fear my insurance policies, they don't fear my smoke detectors, and they don't fear my seat belts.

But they damn sure are afraid of my firearms.

And for no rational reason.

I guess maybe fear does trump reason, after all.

[K8-EEE]

119. A life insurance policy isn't gonna shoot grandpa when he forgets his keys

Or be used in fatal gunplay by a child. It is ridiculous to act like guns are the same as any other product out there, when the whole purpose of them is to kill. With good intentions (defense) or bad.

I'm 50 years old, have lived in a huge city all my life and have NO interest in having a gun. None. It's like a sickness in this country this love affair with guns.

[aliendroid]

130. this coming from someone who spouts out fear

anti-gun people use only fear when they argue. I post up real argument and you just ignore it. I do not spout fear ever. I don't post up stories or events, just facts and reason.

This forum is full of threads that you fear mongering anti-gun crowd post so you can scare people into supporting you.

[gorfle]

88. Here's how it makes sense.

It doesn't make a lick of sense to me. And I've been robbed at gunpoint, it wouldn't have made a bit of difference if I had a gun. The perp always has the element of surprise. Like all the profs are going to be sitting at a meeting with a gun in one hand. It's not that simple.

There have been numerous examples posted here in the past where a bad guy had the drop on the good guys and still the good guys were able to defend themselves.

Yes, a criminal nearly always has the element of surprise. And for the person they target first, or second, or third, they probably don't have any chance of surviving.

But what about the people in the next classroom over? Two classrooms over? Three classrooms over? You don't think people in those places might not have time to act, to prepare to do something besides cower or flee?

I want that chance!

Having a firearm does not guarantee you safety in an assault anymore than wearing a seat belt guarantees your safety during a car crash. But I demand the right to use the tools at my disposal so that in the rare chance I am in those situations I have a better chance to overcome them.

I wish we didn't have such a love for guns in the US. "guns give me power, safety" is a short putt from "guns solve my problems" "guns will show them" and all the other psycho stuff whoever does such a thing must thing.

But we know that for most firearm owners, and ESPECIALLY for CCW permit holders, that is, in fact, an extremely long drive.

As has been substantiated here before, most firearm owners, well over 94%, are never involved in violent crime. CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in any crime than your average citizen. And most people who commit murder, well over 75% and probably over 90%, have extensive prior criminal histories that would make owning a firearm illegal for them already.

[spin]

98. You point out that you have been robbed at gunpoint...

I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry.

That doesn't mean that if an individual gets the drop on me and asks for my wallet, I'm going to instantly go for my gun and begin blazing away.

If I believe that the attacker just wants my wallet, I'll hand it over to him. Nothing in my wallet is worth losing my life over. I can replace my driver’s license, credit cards and the small amount of cash I carry. I can't replace my life or if I'm seriously injured my health.

But if after I comply with his wishes he looks like he is intent on hurting or killing me, the situation escalates to a level where I will draw and attempt to defend myself. If he intends to kill me, I have nothing to lose by resisting.

Most people who carry concealed learn this in the classes required for the permit. It's also commonly taught in martial arts schools.

[SteveM]

148. The plea is not for "MORE MOREMORE guns..."

The demand is that adults who are certified concealed-carry be able to carry those weapons when on campus, if they so chose.

Your "psycho stuff" is pretty, well, scatter-shot, and frankly doesn't make much sense. The vast majority of American gun-owners recognize guns as a useful tool in enhancing (though not ensuring) safety, but few if any think "guns solve my problems" or "guns will show them (the always-cited 'them')." I find it disturbing that you think millions of Americans want to "show them."

[stray cat]

84. Carry a weapon then - If criminals do it illegally then if you want to risk it you can too

If its life and death its worth taking the risk to you I guess. It was clearly worth it to Dr. Bishop

[gorfle]

101. It's a heavy risk, though.

You risk expulsion from school. For me, that means the end of pursuing an engineering degree, unless I move to another town someday.

Not to mention the bad press and possible law-enforcement involvement.

[Kolesar]

97. There are more probable risks in your life that you should be concerned about

Communicable diseases, automobile crashes, financial scams, pollutants, carcinogens, etc.

Good luck in your studies.

[gorfle]

103. No doubt.

There are more probable risks in your life that you should be concerned about Communicable diseases, automobile crashes, financial scams, pollutants, carcinogens, etc.

No doubt all the things you list are things to be concerned about, and because of them I wash my hands, wear my seat belt, am cautious about who I give my financial information to, and pay attention to what I expose my body to.

Likewise I have insurance policies, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, spare tires, and first aid kits.

Modern life has provided us the ability to gird our naked vulnerabilities in the world with tools that can mitigate them.

A firearm is just another tool to be used to counter another vulnerability.

To be sure, some vulnerabilities may be more likely to be exposed than others. But since the tools to guard them are so cheap, why not cover all you can?

[Kolesar]

106. I couldn't even afford an attractive rain coat in college, much less a handgun

and lessons for a CC permit. I got by with this rubberized rain coat and my boy scout rucksack for the books.

[Frances]

107. You are probably too young to have watched

westerns when you were growing up.

But one thing I noticed was that even though everyone was allowed to carry a gun, the people who weren't fast on the draw or who had slowed down because of age were at a disadvantage against the bullies and the professional gun fighters.

When my mother was in her 70s she went to an out-of-town concert with a friend who was also in her 70s. As they were leaving the concert, the friend said, "You don't have to worry. I have Freddy (her gun) in my purse." My mother said she was more worried about Freddy than she was any other danger. If a mugger had tried to rob Mother, she thought she'd have a better chance of survival without her friend pulling out Freddy.

[rd_kent]

113. So you are forming your opinion from a TV show and a personal anecdote?

Really?

[Frances]

118. As I said earlier, I personally know at least 10 people

who were shot by basically good people who were emotionally distraught at the time of the shootings. There were only 1800 people in my home town. Are you saying that those statistics would not have affected your views?

[gorfle]

137. I just hope you realize...

I just hope you realize that you are a statistical aberration.

[Frances]

150. I don't think so

I just think that in a small town a person hears about all kinds of happenings, good and bad.

A small town is a lot like a big family. There aren't any secrets.

For example, a lawyer from a nearby large town used to bring his secretary to a secluded spot on some land he owned every Thursday afternoon. One day the lawyer pulled up into his usual spot for hanky panky (you may be too young to know that term), only to be greeted by a sign that said, "Reserved for (the lawyer's name)."

[gorfle]

151. I know so.

I just think that in a small town a person hears about all kinds of happenings, good and bad.

Hearing about things is different from personally knowing the victims, which is what you claimed when you said, "As I said earlier, I personally know at least 10 people
who were shot by basically good people who were emotionally distraught at the time of the shootings."

Firearm accidents are so rare that the fact that you personally know so many people who were victims of them makes you an aberration.

I mean, damn! Accidental firearm deaths rank below automobiles, falls, poisoning, drowning, fire, and complications for surgery. For you to personally know so many victims of firearm accidents is phenomenal. I think I'd want to be your friend right after Angela Lansbury!

Now if you're just saying you "heard about" shootings, well that's another kettle of fish all together. We all hear about shootings every day. This doesn't mean they are common, just sensational.

[Frances]

152. Here aresome of the people that I knew involved with gun trouble

in no particular order.

There were 76 people in my graduating class. One of my classmates shot and killed his brother. The brothers lived on a farm outside town, so they rode the bus to school.

I worked with a woman in my hometown one summer; her son got into an argument with someone else who went home, got a gun, and came back and shot the young man. It was his mother that I saw crying in the cemetary.

The man who was killed by his step-daughter's estranged husband was the older brother of one of my friends. He was living in Mobile at the time of his death.

The young man who killed himself playing Russian roulette was a relative of our sheriff. The young woman whose gun he used was the daughter of my former next-door neighbor. This suicide took place in Auburn.

The woman who killed her husband after he taunted her over abusing their daughter grew up a block and a half from my house. The killing took place in Selma, but, if I remember correctly, the sheriff didn't charge her because of the circumstances.

The man who died when his shotgun went off when he was climbing a fence was related to the fifth grade teacher. It could have been an accident or it could have been suicide. We didn't have CSI back then, but he had been having marital difficulties.

The boy who wounded himself with a gun, but fortunately did not die, was in my sixth grade class.

I am not trying to tell you what to do with your gun, but I am trying to say that I would be more afraid of having you in my class with a concealed weapon than I would be of a truly troubled person like the Virginia Tech murderer shooting up my classroom.

Statistically, a gun in a person's home is more likely to harm an inhabitant of the home or a friend of someone in the home than it is to protect the homeowners from an outside intruder.

By the way, I am certain that 99.9% of the people in my hometown would fight to the death rather than give up their guns. I am at peace with their feelings because I know the culture. I don't think they would be in favor of concealed weapons, however. I think they'd rather have the guns out in the open; having a concealed weapon would be seen as cowardly, I think.

[spin]

115. Westerns were fun to watch, but they were entertainment...

Old West gun fights as portrayed in the movies were rare but there were some that can be documented.

* In 1865 James Butler Hickok, better known as Wild Bill, quarreled with Davis Tutt in Springfield, Missouri, apparently over a debt. Around 6 PM on July 21, 1865, the two men advanced on each other in the town square, drew their guns at a range of 50 yards, and blasted away. Tutt missed; Hickok didn't; Tutt fell with a ball through the heart. Hickok was tried for manslaughter and acquitted. A sensational account of the incident appeared in Harper's in 1867, making Hickok a national celebrity. Scoffers then and since attacked the story's credibility, in part due to the seeming unlikelihood of hitting a man-sized target with a pistol at 50 yards in 1865, but sufficient evidence has now accumulated to indicate it happened roughly as described. Not that it matters. If only because of the publicity, the notion of lone gunfighters facing each other down became part of western lore.

* On March 9, 1877, gamblers Jim Levy and Charlie Harrison argued over a game of cards in a saloon in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Levy challenged Harrison to take it outside, Harrison agreed, and the two squared off in the street. Western novelist James Reasoner claims in a recent issue of Esquire that this was "the most 'Hollywood' showdown"; I beg to differ. Harrison shot wild; Levy took more careful aim, plugged his man, then--in a decidedly unheroic touch--approached his fallen opponent and shot him again. (One account claims Harrison fired at Levy while sprawled on the ground, but contemporary opinion held that Levy had shot a man while he was down.) Harrison died 13 days later. Levy tried for a repeat performance in 1882 when he quarreled with another gambler, John Murphy, in Tucson and challenged him to a showdown the next day, June 5. Shortly after midnight, though, Murphy and two friends spotted Levy in a doorway, decided there was no time like the present, and shot the unarmed man to death.

That was more typical of old west gun battles--a fair fight offered too great a chance that the guy starting it might get killed. Other parts of the myth are also, well, mythical. The quick draw from a holster was rare; more often the gunman carried his pistol in his pocket, his belt, or better yet his hand immediately prior to the commencement of hostilities. While some famous shootists were indeed nimble with their weapons--John Wesley Hardin, Billy the Kid, and Hickok are often cited in this regard--many say the importance of a quick draw has been exaggerated. Accuracy counted more than speed; keeping cool under fire was more important than both. emphasis added
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2514/did-western-gunfighters-really-face-off-one-on-one

[SteveM]

149. No wonder gun-controllers are hung up on "Wild, Wild West" metaphors...

Too much T.V. drama.

Perhaps more telling than any Western is this phenomenon: you will see more people being killed by a machine gun in 2 episodes of "CSI: Miami" than will be killed in 10 years of "real life."

[GreenStormCloud]

120. It will not be long until shall-issue states begin drop the campus restrictions.

Just as they we are now seeing a wave of states adopt Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and Carry in Restuarants, we will soon start to see campus carry.

[farmout rightarm]

145. To repeat an old maxim, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

...