You have no right to take one safety's away, and the quickest way to do that is point a gun at them or threaten them with a weapon. Carrying a gun does not make you a bigger man in fact, it makes you less of a man. If we were to hand out guns like candy to every fucked up, derranged kid in every school under the idea of "protecting yourself against bullies" we would have massacres every day. You do not have the right to bear arms and you do not have the right to take one safety's away.
Violence is not cool, guns, are not toys. The thought of a 'gun free world' has crossed my mind, it would be cool, the world would indeed be better off without guns. Nuclear weapons too. But as long as their here on earth, people who are seeking to harm someone will find a way to obtain a gun, legal or not, this is my point. And as long as the wrong people have a gun, I will get one (I plan on getting my concealed permit this summer, but no worries I have no intent to bring it on campus lolz).
Well there are many things wrong with your constitution and ways of governing no offence, and the right to bear arms is the main thing that I have a problem with. The right to bear arms is ass shit, as it's main defence is 'the right to protect yourself'. Yes you have a right to protect yourself, doesn't mention anything about having the right to own a gun or to acquire one. The only reason why the second amendment was brought into place was because a bunch of people were afraid that one day an organised militia would rise up against them and the right to bear arms would give them the right to stop a tyranny from happening. The second amendment rapes every word of the first amendment (the right for free speech) as free speech usually gives the opponent to abuse the second amendment (an example of why your Constitution/Bill of Rights hypocritical). It is actually stated in the second amendment: "A well-regulated militia … " but again, what's so regulated about a private citizen and a stash of guns in their possession? It's clear that this opening section of the amendment was not meant to be used in the context of control. Like a famous first lady once said, Eleanor Roosevelt, to back up my argument against guns: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent". Come to Harlz's and my country, gun laws here are strict. You need a licence, you have to be registered with the Commonwealth database, and you need a thorough criminal check. But of course, criminals don't register their guns; that would defeat their whole purpose. So how do we control gun violence when the NRA likes to bring the Second Amendment up, that clearly states no sign of control?
Before I list anything.. You can probably predict what'll be said from me. As I'm what, <10% of what the common political viewpoint is of here? Yeah. Anyhow... THEHANDYMAN YOU ARE NOT ALONE ON THIS MATTER. The argument of increased risk of violence will bring more violence (Pro-guncontrol) is easy to comprehend. If the purpose of a firearm is to harm, then having more firearms available to harm is bad. Having firearms available on campus is bad, like really bad. therefore, we should not have firearms on campus. If this isn't what roughly 4 pages of people agreeing with each other/argue for, then i'm up in arms (harr harr ) To add, since people are suspect to loss of self-control, it only increases the chances of violence. The argument that fear of retaliation from anyone will prevent harm being done is also fairly easy to comprehend. If in a class of 35 (or rather, 19-100) and a random person has a chance of carrying a concealed firearm, would you open fire on someone? If one wanted to force people, a hallway of people into a room with a firearm(gun-point), could one do so easily when the to-be-hostages might be armed? Consistently, it places the offender in a bad position as the victim is never entirely weak/vulnerable. Therefore, If a concealed firearm brings fear to a possible offender, then we ought to have concealed firearms to prevent violence. I think this is a conservative's best argument possible. I mean, they could argue for other things, but it wouldn't be relevant. (Hunting - but thats as far as it goes really... :X) To clarify... I might not have used the best words or best description, but I think we'd get a sense of what I'm trying to say. One (Pro-control) is to eliminate a dangerous weapon from a place where instability and risk for violence could be high. The other is to eliminate (reduce) a instability and risk by reducing the chances of occurances We have to acknowledge some things. 1) Are we making the assumption that people make irrational, emotionally driven decisions, and will carry them out? eg, "That professor failed me, even when I got help and I did my best, and I still got a F. therefore, next semester, I'll kill him." 1a) It appears people will carry out these choices, and that they will do so because they have a firearm available. 1b) It appears people will not, given that a possible assailant might get away with one, but will face his mortality very soon, probably. Or wouldn't get far. Because someone else has a gun to stop them. 2) We make the assumption that firearms are only for killing people. 2a/b) It appears that, from slightly dated data, that most people own firearms for hunting (wildlife) or recreational uses (sport shooting). (~35% each.) Of the same data, most own a firearm for self protection (~40%) -- source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt -- (indeed I knowits dated, however, given its abstract, it seems as though firearm ownership is declining, and therefore when read above, should be slightly less.) -- 3) Do we make an assumption that only bad people obtain firearms? 3a) Sorta. It goes with the idea that firearms are meant to do harm, and will therefore go with it. It remains allusive, but it tends to be that people who are "crazy/bad/unstable" people are the ones who are the highest and most likeliest ones to obtain a firearm. That is, in this view. 3b) Sorta. It goes with the idea that bad people will only use/obtain a firearm to carry-out their horrible objective. Of the facts... "Those who own a firearm are likely to have injuries. (Something around 2x higher)" Response: Well yes. However, refering back to the source (National Institute of Justice), a person is likely to purchase a firearm in self-defense. A person will seek to purchase a firearm in self-defense because,likely, they believe it to the best possible method of self-defense. Why would they seek to obtain such a weapon for self-defense? Possibly because they believe the area they reside in is dangerous. Possibly because they have been robbed/burglured(sp) before/and many times before. Possibly _______. What i'm trying to say here is that they have an external stimuli for which they are reacting to. So if a person believes they live in a dangerous area/need self-assurance of security/etc.. then they will possess a firearm. If they possess a firearm when a crime is being committed in their house, then they will likely use a firearm to defend their property/someone. Therefore, Of course, it is logical to conclude that "those who possess a firearm are more likely to be injuried". (My second guess is that those who murder with a firearm are included. But I haven't researched it) Moving out of an area isn't always an option, financially. This is about schools and firearms, so. Have there been more school shootings now than ever before? My hypothesis is that no. I believe that more stories are published, and given the nature of availability heuristics, it seems to occur more often, but the number of them are rare still. Should we have concealed firearms on campus? Given all this... I believe that we ought to have a person or two. Probably local police/hired guard who is armed. Other than that, students themselves? I don't know, but I really enjoy the fear of retaliation argument. If I were to have a gun, I certainly wouldn't pull it out against my fellow-classmates if i knew anyone of them could've been armed. If three people had concealed firearms in a classroom, and one of them pulled out a firearm against someone, i would suppose that person would have a tough time going through with the act. I think students ought to be able if they wish to ( of course with restraints such as checking in with the security office/permit/counseling + mental health before allowing an on-campus permit) .
Wow, well there ya go, someone who can more intelligently and efficiently express my opinion, and at that in a more oranized way. Well said.
Having a gun in your pocket won't keep you any safer if you didn't have a gun in your pocket. I fail to see how you can possibly disagree with that.
Exactly. Statistically speaking, if you're a gun owner, you're more likely to harm a loved one than an intruder. We have the police force to protect us citizens, they were brought in so us, the citizens would not have to take the law into our own hands. I fail to see a rebuttal to my amendment argument. Karate or other forms of self defence not only provide the perfect defence when needed, but it also gives you a work out. And a lot less people know how to professionally take on an attacker without the need to resort to weapons. So having an upper hand on a fist-to-fist combat is much better. Statistically, you are wrong. The occurrence of having a high school shooting happen is more likely to happen than ever before, as a study in 2009 was conducted. More students are actually starting to fear for their lives because of uncontrolled circumstances in their schools because of these loose gun laws.
High school is one thing, but the OP proposed concealed-weapon permits on university campuses. Which, again, raises the question: What's prompting this debate? Have violent crimes on university campuses been on the rise? It's hard for me to rationalize such extreme measures without any compelling evidence to back it up.
Would you agree that there are people out there who want to harm other people? If so, would you agree that the people who want to harm other people will use anything they can? From fists, bags, pens, knifes, etc..? If so, would you agree that people who are victims of these attacks ought to be able to defend themselves? Be it that with other fists, bags, pens, knifes, etc..? If so, would you agree that people who defend themselves have a right (or rather, should be able) to retaliate with anything in their power? If so, would you agree that victims should not be powerless? If so, would you agree that a firearm is the best deterrent for violence? (as it could protect the student.) If so, would you agree that the offender, even if he did had a firearm, would pause when confronted with a gun? (Like, guns pointed at each other.) If so, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that concealed firearms can lead to safety. An examples of this within my life would be that I know a few good people who carry pocket knifes with them incase of a bad situation. They tell me that many more people carry pocket knifes then I would believe to be. ( I said like maybe 100? Clearly I was wrong, being too low ) but knowing that a few people carry pocket knifes, am I compelled to believe that if I wanted to harm someone with a knife, they would be defenseless ? And being that someone would be any random student I walked by. I've really wanted to give someone justice for their bad-mouthing once, but I stopped. I didn't know if they were armed with a knife or if they knew how to fight well. I held myself back because I knew a few people had knifes in their pocket, and i didn't know this person. Could this person have a knife in their pocket? certainly, but why risk it? So I just let it go. As we can see, knowing a few people have concealed weapons did deter me from assaulting the foul-mouth guy. And probably, of all the cases and examples (And hypotheticals) would be similar to this. Had I known that he was defenseless, I would've gone at him, perhaps even obtaining a weapon for the next time I saw him. I still fail how you can disagree entirely with me. Partly? Of course. Not entirely. Do you believe that people should have autonomy? If so, would you agree that self-defense is part of autonomy? I do. Its tough to be self-regulated and autnomous if there are no constraints for which I cannot overstep.
I would answer yes to the first four or so questions there, but after that it's the kind of thing where you can't really paint it with broad strokes either way. I think I said right away in my first post here that I'm not necessarily against people having weapons full stop, so hopefully people don't think I'm just toeing the typical liberal line haha, but you just can't account for how different people will react in these situations even if they are ostensibly sane and stable. As such, I wouldn't necessarily count on people to do the right thing if they were carrying firearms in public. That distrust in itself would probably be an issue. Maybe some good would come of it but I'm pretty convinced that the net result of it would be to exacerbate existing problems.
This is what I still don't understand: Why does a gun in your pocket make you safer? It's not like if someone shoots you, you can pull out your gun and shoot them back. Again Sarah, martial arts isn't going to do anything either lol. The problem is that it's impossible to defend yourself against a gun. The only way to keep people safe in these suggested places where guns are common is to get rid of the guns. Yeah, some people will get guns anyways, but there isn't really anything you can do with a gun for self defense.
We can't ban guns. Because as much as it sounds like an Utopian idea, a person is going to obtain it one way or another. Military's would be defenceless against nations who do not prohibit weaponry etc. Tighter restrictions? A revision of the second amendment? Go nuts.
Just to be clear, I AM for guns in the police department, military, and security guards. I also realize that a lot of people truly are good about keeping their gone in their house at all times (so basically only using it if someone broke in your house). Unfortunately, not everyone is that smart, which is why I think restrictions are in order. Or at the very least, not giving every fucking kid a gun at a campus.
The thing is, in theory I'm more or less for people being able to keep a gun or something at home. But I'm stumped as to how you legislate people keeping it at home and not carrying it in public.
^ I caught that and thought "What the fuck?" Okay, your right to free speech ends the moment someone physically assaults you until then you don't have a right to do anything to them but insult them and bad mouth them back or take them to court if you want to but I don't see the point unless it's slander. But admitting you would attack someone for something they said? That's exactly why people don't need guns in school, especially if something as small as that can set a person off and want to make you physically hurt someone. And yeah, I know it's hard because I've gone through it and I've had my down falls. I've got in fights over someone calling my mom a bitch, in high school and I punched him in the face as soon as he said it but I regret doing that and know that I over reacted but now a'days I just laugh off stuff like that because it's pointless to get upset over.
At least you didn't have a gun. Or else you would be laughing it off in prison with 1st degree murder