Concealed Carry on campus
0
PersonDude wrote...
g-money wrote...
If kids at high school age can obtain weapons and go on shooting sprees, it makes me less confident in the gun control laws. Columbine, VIT, and many other incidents are not events to be ignored.Again, people seem to be ignoring the fact that even if guns were outlawed, they could be acquired through illegal methods. Making guns legally purchasable gives the public a chance at fighting back, since the bad guys aren't the only ones with guns.
Though it will be much harder for the kids to get weapon if they're not as easy to come by, a lot fewer people would would want to take the risk and spend the energy trying to get it illegally.
0
Ethil wrote...
Lesson of Society: There is a lot more countries that has illegalized weapons that don't have any dictatorship; rather the opposite, the people actually have equal rights and important governmental (? might be wrong word, w/e) is decided by the people itself, by vote. I don't think that a bunch of armed hoodlums can stand against the government AND THE ARMY WHICH ANSWERS TO IT, guns or not. Don't mix up tyranical dictators with normal, working societies.A population without a means to defend itself from oppressive forces will be oppressed. All it takes is one person to get into power through a democratic election and the police can begin searching your homes without warrants since you can't defend yourself and they have guns. The police can also spy on your day to day activities because they can push you around since the masses don't have a means to defend themselves against the gun wielding police. People can and will be picked off the streets for speaking their minds. All it takes is one man to issue the order and a country can become an Orwellian society.
Then how about making the police do a better job instead of giving criminals more space to move about by handing out guns to everybody and their mothers?
As we've said before the criminals will circumvent the laws so you really don't do anything besides disarm the people who have no intention of harming someone outside of self defense. Also, the police are government workers. The American Government (politicians) doesn't give a damn about it's population. They only care about getting re-elected and keeping the special interest happy. Intelligent Americans don't trust the Government to do anything besides fuck things up worse than the problems they tried to fix.
Yea, sure, just shoot the guy in the shoulder and Hope that he don't bleed to death.
The man tried to deprive my loved ones or myself of life or property. I have no sympathy for him. He made the choice to try to violate my rights so I exercised my second amendment.
I must say that I'd rather have an increase of stealing than keeping a high count of innocent victims. And as I said, a guns is a much more deadly weapon than a knife, so if they change to that it's just for the better. And shit like gun registration and crap obviosly doesn't work, since people are getting killed with legally obtained weapons.
Gun crime does down as the people without criminal connections move to a knife or other weapons. The decrease in the ease of killing an unarmed person drops slightly which would be countered by the increase in unarmed persons in the country. So in essence you really did nothing. People are still going to die in similar numbers and law abiding people will no be able to defend themselves unless they want to have a knife fight. A gun on the hip sends a message to any criminal that you can kill them, so they'll move on to easier targets. It's like a house with a security system. Sure, you can break in but, why bother when the house next door doesn't have a security system?
Since it's allowed to carry it, what good does the screening do? I hardly think that every student gets to know which other students that carry a weapon.
So your saying a single person with criminal intent will acquire something and use it for criminal purposes. Therefore, it should be banned. Which by that logic, a lot of things should be banned because a criminal will use them for criminal purposes. The point of carrying a concealed weapon is that a person with criminal intent won't know who is packing and who is not. A criminal won't waste his time if 1 out of every X people has the ability to make him D.R.T. Your even less likely to go on a shooting spree when you know that half or a quarter of the campus can put you down as soon as you start firing.
Yea, americans enjoy that, while they also enjoy war, murdering people from other countries, saying that it's "for the greater good". You people obviously does not even know what Freedom and Liberty stands for. Just an overly used empty frase that have lost it's meaning. To prevent something that does more harm to society than helps it is not "tyrannical collectivism", it should be fucking standard law for any civilized country. People enjoy freedom just the same, but they don't go around killing eachother or takes the law in their own hands. And it obviously works, since homocide crimerates is a lot lower in Any EU country than in the US. And hey, I can still do whatever I want, work with whatever I want to, go wherever I want, screw it all if I want that as well. Feels good being able to do that knowing that even if someone gets angry I won't at least get a gun in my face.
Um, your fangs are dripping. Might want to get a napkin or something.
I am well aware of the meaning of Freedom and Liberty and I am also VERY aware of my constitutional rights which clearly state in the second amendment that I have a right to bear arms. Whether or not it "does harm to society" if subject to debate. The E.U. doesn't have the rampant gang problem flowing over from Mexico from gangs like the Zetas and various cartels. Not to mention the huge gang problem we have with crypts, bloods, Latin kings, gangster disciples, maniac Latin disciples, Texas syndicate, among the dozens of others features on History Channels "Gangland". With those psychos pumping each other full of holes of course our homicide rate is going to be higher
[quote]In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.) Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels."
People with your mindset point to the U.S. and can only connect two dots " The U.S. has a lot of guns and a high murder rate. Therefore guns must cause murder". Though you ignore other countries that disprove your theory but, it's contrary evidence. Why do I even expect people to even read things contrary to what they hold to be true?
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Ethil wrote...
Lesson of Society: There is a lot more countries that has illegalized weapons that don't have any dictatorship; rather the opposite, the people actually have equal rights and important governmental (? might be wrong word, w/e) is decided by the people itself, by vote. I don't think that a bunch of armed hoodlums can stand against the government AND THE ARMY WHICH ANSWERS TO IT, guns or not. Don't mix up tyranical dictators with normal, working societies.A population without a means to defend itself from oppressive forces will be oppressed. All it takes is one person to get into power through a democratic election and the police can begin searching your homes without warrants since you can't defend yourself and they have guns. The police can also spy on your day to day activities because they can push you around since the masses don't have a means to defend themselves against the gun wielding police. People can and will be picked off the streets for speaking their minds. All it takes is one man to issue the order and a country can become an Orwellian society.
Wrong, the police must have a warrant, since in My country, one man does not rule alone. Our political leader must have the consent of... don't know how it translates, let's just say The Council, and also by majority vote from the population to change any law, and I doubt that the warranty law will change. The police also does not answer only to the government, but also by the people represented council. And it's murder if a policeman just kill someone as well, must be a very, VERY good reason for it to happend.
Then how about making the police do a better job instead of giving criminals more space to move about by handing out guns to everybody and their mothers?
As we've said before the criminals will circumvent the laws so you really don't do anything besides disarm the people who have no intention of harming someone outside of self defense. Also, the police are government workers. The American Government (politicians) doesn't give a damn about it's population. They only care about getting re-elected and keeping the special interest happy. Intelligent Americans don't trust the Government to do anything besides fuck things up worse than the problems they tried to fix.
Then maybe you should start out with changing your entire country to the better.
Yea, sure, just shoot the guy in the shoulder and Hope that he don't bleed to death.
The man tried to deprive my loved ones or myself of life or property. I have no sympathy for him. He made the choice to try to violate my rights so I exercised my second amendment.
I wouldn't either, but fact is that if He dies, You are a murderer.
I must say that I'd rather have an increase of stealing than keeping a high count of innocent victims. And as I said, a guns is a much more deadly weapon than a knife, so if they change to that it's just for the better. And shit like gun registration and crap obviosly doesn't work, since people are getting killed with legally obtained weapons.
Gun crime does down as the people without criminal connections move to a knife or other weapons. The decrease in the ease of killing an unarmed person drops slightly which would be countered by the increase in unarmed persons in the country. So in essence you really did nothing. People are still going to die in similar numbers and law abiding people will no be able to defend themselves unless they want to have a knife fight. A gun on the hip sends a message to any criminal that you can kill them, so they'll move on to easier targets. It's like a house with a security system. Sure, you can break in but, why bother when the house next door doesn't have a security system?
Oh, even better, survival of the fittest, people who don't want to risk being murderers (not only by law, but as a moral question) and have weapons are the one targeted by criminals instead. Must be great for them.
Since it's allowed to carry it, what good does the screening do? I hardly think that every student gets to know which other students that carry a weapon.
So your saying a single person with criminal intent will acquire something and use it for criminal purposes. Therefore, it should be banned. Which by that logic, a lot of things should be banned because a criminal will use them for criminal purposes. The point of carrying a concealed weapon is that a person with criminal intent won't know who is packing and who is not. A criminal won't waste his time if 1 out of every X people has the ability to make him D.R.T. Your even less likely to go on a shooting spree when you know that half or a quarter of the campus can put you down as soon as you start firing.
It's a WEAPON. It is made for the sole purpose of KILLING. It's not a screwdriver, which can be used as a criminal instrument as well.
Yea, americans enjoy that, while they also enjoy war, murdering people from other countries, saying that it's "for the greater good". You people obviously does not even know what Freedom and Liberty stands for. Just an overly used empty frase that have lost it's meaning. To prevent something that does more harm to society than helps it is not "tyrannical collectivism", it should be fucking standard law for any civilized country. People enjoy freedom just the same, but they don't go around killing eachother or takes the law in their own hands. And it obviously works, since homocide crimerates is a lot lower in Any EU country than in the US. And hey, I can still do whatever I want, work with whatever I want to, go wherever I want, screw it all if I want that as well. Feels good being able to do that knowing that even if someone gets angry I won't at least get a gun in my face.
Um, your fangs are dripping. Might want to get a napkin or something.
*wipes fangs*
I am well aware of the meaning of Freedom and Liberty and I am also VERY aware of my constitutional rights which clearly state in the second amendment that I have a right to bear arms. Whether or not it "does harm to society" if subject to debate. The E.U. doesn't have the rampant gang problem flowing over from Mexico from gangs like the Zetas and various cartels. Not to mention the huge gang problem we have with crypts, bloods, Latin kings, gangster disciples, maniac Latin disciples, Texas syndicate, among the dozens of others features on History Channels "Gangland". With those psychos pumping each other full of holes of course our homicide rate is going to be higher
Yea, a law that only exist in america, where thousands of people gets murdered as a daily basis. And some of the worlds most dangerous criminal gangs exist inside the E.U. The Real mafia e.g. Also a lot of Bikergangs, like the Hells Angels. There is also the Russian Mafia, and a number of other mafias from different countries, and a number of different gangs. But U.S people only have eyes for themselves, since it always must be so much more in america, whatever it is.
In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership. For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant. Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.) Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels."
People with your mindset point to the U.S. and can only connect two dots " The U.S. has a lot of guns and a high murder rate. Therefore guns must cause murder". Though you ignore other countries that disprove your theory but, it's contrary evidence. Why do I even expect people to even read things contrary to what they hold to be true?
First of all, the murders in Ireland is caused by religious squabble, and has been going on for god knows how many years, but the Catholics and Protestants over there has always been killing eachother.
And you're an idiot, I'm not saying Guns causer murder, I'm saying that it is used as an instrument of murder, and a much better one than a knife. Then tell me, why is it that there are so many homocide cases in the US? Do you know that yourself? Since I Know that it is not Only gangs that for the most part only murder eachother any way.
0
Ethil wrote...
Though it will be much harder for the kids to get weapon if they're not as easy to come by, a lot fewer people would would want to take the risk and spend the energy trying to get it illegally.Is that why kids in the United States (or anyone in the US for that matter) are able to obtain illegal drugs and narcotics? Do you really think they'll have problems obtaining a gun if they really want it?
0
PersonDude wrote...
Ethil wrote...
Though it will be much harder for the kids to get weapon if they're not as easy to come by, a lot fewer people would would want to take the risk and spend the energy trying to get it illegally.Is that why kids in the United States (or anyone in the US for that matter) are able to obtain illegal drugs and narcotics? Do you really think they'll have problems obtaining a gun if they really want it?
I think that people who has no knowledge and conection to the criminal world before will have a harder time, yes, even if they probably will be able to get it if they want, but they will have to take much greater risks,and they can also be arrested if seen by the police.
0
Ethil wrote...
Wrong, the police must have a warrant, since in My country, one man does not rule alone. Our political leader must have the consent of... don't know how it translates, let's just say The Council, and also by majority vote from the population to change any law, and I doubt that the warranty law will change. The police also does not answer only to the government, but also by the people represented council. And it's murder if a policeman just kill someone as well, must be a very, VERY good reason for it to happend.For the love of, do they teach reading comprehension in the E.U. ? If people don't have a means to defend themselves then the government can and will turn hostile and oppressive.
Edit; Just because someone hasn't already doesn't mean it won't be possible in the future. All it takes is one man or a small group to put a country under martial law. Past presidents of the U.S. have disregarded the very document in which the country was founded, even threw people in jail for voicing opposition (or not specifically voicing support) during WW2.
George Mason wrote...
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."Thomas Jefferson wrote...
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.""An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject."
Then maybe you should start out with changing your entire country to the better.
Yes, don't rock the boat or be different. This is the way to be better. I am working on changing my country for the better. I'm trying to get politicians to be held accountable among a dozen other things I wish to improve in my country. If you stick around a while maybe you'll hear a few. On the general ideas, you and I would certainly agree 100% but, we'd disagree on the specifics.
I wouldn't either, but fact is that if He dies, You are a murderer.
Protecting the rights of several people makes me a murderer? I can only wonder if you look upon your police and military vets with such scorn. I mean, they're just murderers and murder has no justification right?
Oh, even better, survival of the fittest, people who don't want to risk being murderers (not only by law, but as a moral question) and have weapons are the one targeted by criminals instead. Must be great for them.
Wow, just wow. let me set you straight which you can easily find statistics to show you exactly how backwards your logic is. Criminals avoid those who have the ability to defend themselves. A thief will look for the easiest target, not the hardest. A murderer will look for the weakest person that they can kill. You will never hear a criminal say "He has a gun, I think I'll go and rob/kill them." Otherwise with that brilliant logic they would ignore houses without alarms and only target those who have alarms.
Seriously, your allowed to vote?
It's a WEAPON. It is made for the sole purpose of KILLING. It's not a screwdriver, which can be used as a criminal instrument as well.
No shit Sherlock. What the hell do you expect to defend yourself with? A frying pan? A sword is meant to kill, should we go ahead and ban those as well?
First of all, the murders in Ireland is caused by religious squabble, and has been going on for god knows how many years, but the Catholics and Protestants over there has always been killing eachother.
And you're an idiot, I'm not saying Guns causer murder, I'm saying that it is used as an instrument of murder, and a much better one than a knife. Then tell me, why is it that there are so many homocide cases in the US? Do you know that yourself? Since I Know that it is not Only gangs that for the most part only murder eachother any way.
And you're an idiot, I'm not saying Guns causer murder, I'm saying that it is used as an instrument of murder, and a much better one than a knife. Then tell me, why is it that there are so many homocide cases in the US? Do you know that yourself? Since I Know that it is not Only gangs that for the most part only murder eachother any way.
Even if gang members are only killing each others, that still counts towards the homicide rate (and yet, I'M the idiot). I'll try to translate but, I'm afraid I'm rather rusty.
According to a police study in 1992 the "reasons' break down as follows
37.7% Arguments
7.1% Narcotics
6.0%Other Felonies
10.1% Robbery
16.5% Unknown
22.5% Other Motives
If you want "deeper" motives you'll have to look up those yourself. I will take a guess and say that homicide rates are up due to pathetic and incompetent police and courts where criminals are not held accountable for their actions and instead get an excuse for their actions like "It was societies fault" or 'They didn't have a good home". As for homicide rates among black youth, I blame the gang culture. It's easier to deal drugs than it is to get an education and make something of yourself. rapist kill so they won't be identified, some murderers kill just because something is wrong in their head and nobody caught them yet.
There is a literal fuckton of stats on homicide rates by country but, none of them really break it down much more than X nation has a rate of Y compared to nation Z per every 100,000 citizens.
Now, that we've driven this topic so far off topic can we attempt to get on topic? Americans like their guns and this isn't a topic about guns vs no guns. Its about whether or not a person should go through tests and screenings so they can carry a firearm for their own protection.
0
Ethil wrote...
I think that people who has no knowledge and conection to the criminal world before will have a harder time, yes, even if they probably will be able to get it if they want, but they will have to take much greater risks,and they can also be arrested if seen by the police.You underestimate people with will. Street knowledge is easy to come by. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that there is an archive of these knowledge on the very medium you're using to post in this site: The internet. Also, do you really think there is any bigger risk than killing? If people have decided to take a risk in killing, why do you think they won't take risks in acquiring a gun?